The       Speeches       of 

Daniel    Webster 


SELECTED     BY 


REV.  B.  F.  TEFFT,  D.D..LL.D. 

Embracing  his  acknowledged  masterpieces  m  each  depart- 
ment of  the  great  field  of  intellectual  action 


Lincoln    Centenary    Association 
New  York 


PREFACE. 


IT  has  been  my  intention  in  this  volume  to  give,  not 
only  Mr.  Webster's  acknowledged  master-pieces,  but  his 
master-piece  in  each  department  of  the  great  field  of  in- 
tellectual action  which  he  occupied  in  life ;  and,  though 
there  are  other  speeches,  which  would  compare  favorably 
with  some  that  have  found  a  place  here,  there  is  none,  it 
is  believed,  which  could  be  regarded  as  superior,  in  any  of 
the  divisions,  to  the  one  selected. 

In  several  of  the  great  speeches  not  included  in  this 
collection,  there  are  single  passages,  which,  perhaps,  could 
scarcely  be  surpassed,  if  some  of  them  could  be  equaled, 
by  any  passages  found  in  the  speeches  included  in  this' 
volume;  but,  in  making  a  collection  of  his  master- 
pieces, the  object  of  search  is  not  single  passages,  but 
entire  performances;  and,  taking  this  as  the  standard, 
there  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  volume  here  presented 
to  the  reader  contains  the  ablest  and  most  eloquent  pro- 
ductions bequeathed  to  the  world  by  the  genius  of  Daniel 
Webster.  They  are  the  productions,  which,  it  is  presumed, 
every  gentleman  will  feel  it  necessary  to  have  about  him ; 
and  it  is  equally  presumable  that  no  enlightened  parent, 
no  true-hearted  American  citizen,  will  wish  to  have  his 
sons  and  daughters  grow  up  without  becoming  more  or 
less  familiar  with  those  master  efforts  of  the  greatest 
man,  intellectually,  which  our  common  country  has  yet 
given  us. 

I 


4  PREFACE. 

We  have  heard  much  in  days  passed,  and  may  hear 
more  in  days  to  come,  of  a  dissolution  of  our  national  con- 
federacy. Rank  doctrines  are  no  doubt  at  work  in  dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  Union,  and  in  the  several  strata  of 
society.  While  Mr.  Webster  lived,  he  was  acknowledged 
as  the  ablest  supporter  and  defender  of  the  constitution 
as  it  is,  and  of  the  country  as  it  is.  From  one  end  of  the 
country  to  the  other,  from  the  rocky  shores  of  the  Atlantic 
to  the  peaceful  waters  of  the  Pacific,  his  name,  his  voice, 
his  authority,  were  everywhere  known  and  recognized  as 
the  great  bulwark  of  our  American  nationality,  of  our 
American  independence,  of  the  integrity  and  perpetuity  of 
our  great  and  united  American  republic.  At  the  north, 
and  at  the  south,  from  the  east  to  the  farthest  west,  he 
was  known  and  felt  in  this  high  capacity.  But  he  was 
thus  known,  not  by  virtue  of  any  office  he  ever  filled ;  for 
he  never  rose  to  an  office  which  made  him  the  representa- 
tive of  more  than  one  state  in  the  confederacy.  He  was 
known  as  such,  indeed,  not  so  much  as  a  senator  from  the 
patriotic  state  of  Massachusetts,  as  for  his  personal  ability 
and  efforts,  out  of  congress  as  well  as  in  it,  from  the  day 
his  name  became  connected  with  the  history  of  the  coun- 
try. He  was  so  known,  in  a  word,  for  the  speeches  he 
made,  at  different  times,  as  the  first  of  American  orators 
devoted  to  the  defence  of  the  institutions  and  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  nation ;  and  these  speeches,  which  are  destined 
to  last  from  generation  to  generation,  constitute  the  body 
of  this  volume.  Since  the  living  voice,  then,  is  silent 
forever  in  the  grave,  shall  not  the  immortal  utterances  of 
that  voice  be  welcome  throughout  the  whole  country,  east, 
west,  north,  south,  as  the  best  creations  of  American  ora- 
torical genius,  and  as  the  most  salutary  instructions  and 
lessons  to  the  entire  American  brotherhood?  Though 
born  in  one  section  of  the  country,  and  settled  in  after 
life  in  another  section,  he  belonged  to  all  sections  equally, 


PREFACE.  § 

to  the  whole  people  of  the  republic ;  and  his  name  and 
fame,  and  his  immortal  works,  should  be  equally  welcome, 
and  will  be  welcome,  in  every  portion  of  the  Union. 

It  will  be  a  curious  and  instructive  exercise  for  the 
reader,  in  the  perusal  of  the  several  speeches,  to  look  at 
the  dates  of  their  publication,  and  thus  note  the  progress 
of  Mr.  Webster's  mind  toward  that  wonderful  develop- 
ment which  it  finally  attained ;  and  it  will  be  particularly 
noticed,  that  between  the  times  of  his  Dartmouth  College 
argument  and  of  his  reply  to  Hayne,  which  mark  the  two 
extremes  of  the  most  brilliant  period  of  his  life,  there  is  a 
space  of  only  twelve  years,  which  were  the  years  interven- 
ing between  the  thirty-sixth  and  the  forty-eighth  year  of 
his  age. 

It  is.  quite  evident  that  Mr.  Webster  matured  rather 
slowly ;  that  his  efforts  made  before  the  age  of  fifty  were 
his  most  popular  because  the  most  impassioned  efforts ; 
but  that  his  productions  dated  beyond  the  age  of  fifty, 
though  less  fiery,  are  generally  more  indicative  of  his 
unsurpassed  abilities  as  a  man  of  deep,  penetrating,  far- 
reaching,  and  comprehensive  mind.  His  mind,  indeed, 
seemed  to  grow  clearer  as  he  advanced  in  years ;  and  the 
very  latest  speeches,  though  not  so  striking  to  superficial 
hearers,  will  be  regarded  hereafter,  by  close  and  compe- 
tent readers,  as  the  most  finished  of  all  the  productions  of 
his  tongue  and  pen. 

One  result,  it  is  to  be  earnestly  hoped,  will  not  fail  to 
follow  a  general  circulation  of  these  master-pieces  among 
the  generous  youth  of  Mr.  Webster's  native  land.  It  is 
to  be  hoped  that  his  style  of  elocution,  calm,  slow  digni- 
fied, natural,  unambitious,  and  yet  direct  and  powerful, 
will  take  the  place  of  that  showy,  flowery,  flashy,  fitful 
and  boisterous  sort  of  speaking,  which  seems  to  be  be- 
coming too  common,  which  so  breaks  down  the  health  of 
the  speaker,  and  which  is  nevertheless  most  likely  to 


6  PREFACE. 

strike  the  feelings  and  corrupt  the  judgment  of  the  young. 
Let  me  here  say  plainly,  that,  having  heard  Mr.  Webster 
speak  very  frequently,  on  almost  every  variety  of  oc- 
casion, I  have  never  heard  him,  even  when  most  excited, 
raise  his  voice  higher,  or  sink  it  lower,  or  utter  his  words 
more  rapidly  than  he  could  do  consistently  with  the  most 
perfect  ease,  and  with  the  utmost  dignity  of  movement. 
He  never  played  the  orator.  He  never  seemed  to  be  mak- 
ing any  effort.  What  he  had  to  say  he  said  as  easily,  as 
naturally,  and  yet  as  forcibly  as  possible,  with  such  a 
voice  as  he  used  in  common  conversation,  only  elevated 
and  strengthened  to  meet  the  demands  of  his  large  audi- 
ences. So  intent  did  he  seem  to  be,  so  intent  he  certainly 
was,  in  making  his  hearers  see  and  feel  as  he  did,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject  of  the  hour,  that  no  one  thought  of  his 
manner,  or  whether  he  had  any  manner,  till  the  speech 
was  over.  That  is  oratory,  true  oratory  ;  and  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  the  more  general  distribution  of  these  master- 
pieces will  have  the  ultimate  effect  of  making  it  the  Ameri- 
can standard  of  oratory  from  this  age  to  all  future  ages. 

B.  F.  TEFFT. 


CONTENTS. 


The  Dartmouth  College  Case 9 

Plymouth  Oration 81 

The  Greek  Revolution 119 

The  Bunker  Hill  Monument 163 

Eulogy  on  Adams  and  Jefferson 191 

Boston  Mechanics'  Institution,  Boston 239 

The  Character-ef  Washington 259 

Speech  at  New  York 279 

Letter  on  Impressment 331 

The  Reply  to  Hayne 345 

Reply  to  Calhoun 445 

The  Constitution  and  the  Union. .          .  519 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.* 

Argument  in  the  Case  of  the  Trustees  of  Dartmouth  College  vs. 
Woodward,  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  10th  day  of  March,  1818. 

THE  general  question  is,  whether  the  acts  of  the  27th 
of  June,  and  of  the  18th  and  26th  of  December,  1816,  are 
valid  and  binding  on  the  rights  of  the  plaintiffs,  without 
their  acceptance  or  assent. 

The  charter  of  1769  created  and  established  a  corpora- 
tion, to  consist  of  twelve  persons,  and  no  more  ;  to  be 
called  the  "  Trustees  of  Dartmouth  College."  The  pre- 
amble to  the  charter  recites,  that  it  is  granted  on  the 
application  and  request  of  the  Rev.  Eleazer  Wheelock : 
That  Doctor  Wheelock,  about  the  year  1754,  established 
a  charity  school,  at  his  own  expense,  and  on  his  own 
estate  and  plantation  :  That  for  several  years,  through 
the  assistance  of  well-disposed  persons  in  America, 
granted  at  his  solicitation,  he  had  clothed,  maintained, 
and  educated  a  number  of  native  Indians,  and  employed 

*  Mr.  Webster's  argument  in  the  Dartmouth  College  Case  has 
stood,  from  the  day  of  its  delivery,  as  his  universally  acknowl- 
edged master-piece  in  this  department  of  his  public  labors.  The 
circumstances  attending  the  delivery  of  the  speech,  with  the 
origin  and  nature  of  the  suit,  have  been  given  in  the  previous 
volume  of  this  work.  As  the  master-pieces  are  arranged  in 
chronological  order,  that  the  growth  of  Mr.  Webster's  mind  may 
be  noted,  the  reader  will  observe  that  this  speech  was  delivered 
in  1818,  when  the  author  of  it  was  about  thirty-six  years  of  age. 
It  is  perhaps  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that  Mr.  Webster  gained 
his  case. 

11 


12  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

them  afterwards  as  missionaries  and  schoolmasters  among 
the  savage  tribes :  That,  his  design  promising  to  be  use- 
ful, he  had  constituted  the  Rev.  Mr.  Whitaker  to  be  his 
attorney,  with  power  to  solicit  contributions,  in  England, 
for  the  further  extension  and  carrying  on  of  his  undertak- 
ing ;  and  that  he  had  requested  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth, 
Baron  Smith,  Mr.  Thornton,  and  other  gentlemen,  to 
receive  such  sums  as  might  be  contributed,  in  England, 
towards  supporting  his  school,  and  to  be  trustees  thereof 
for  his  charity  ;  which  these  persons  had  agreed  to  do  : 
And  thereupon  Doctor  Wheelock  had  executed  to  them 
a  deed  of  trust,  in  pursuance  to  such  agreement  between 
him  and  them,  and,  for  divers  good  reasons,  had  referred 
it  to  these  persons  to  determine  the  place  in  which  the 
school  should  be  finally  established :  And,  to  enable  them 
to  form  a  proper  decision  on  this  subject,  had  laid  before 
them  the  several  offers  which  had  been  made  to  him  by 
the  several  governments  in  America,  in  order  to  induce 
him  to  settle  and  establish  his  school  within  the  limits  of 
such  governments  for  their  own  emolument,  and  the  in- 
crease of  learning  in  their  respective  places,  as  well  as 
for  the  furtherance  of  his  general  original  design  :  And 
inasmuch  as  a  number  of  the  proprietors  of  lands  in  New 
Hampshire,  animated  by  the  example  of  the  governor 
himself  and  others,  and  in  consideration  that,  without 
any  impediment  to  its  original  design,  the  school  might 
be  enlarged  and  improved,  to  promote  learning  among 
the  English,  and  to  supply  ministers  to  the  people  of  that 
province,  had  promised  large  tracts  of  land,  provided  the 
school  should  be  established  in  that  province,  the  persons 
before  mentioned,  having  weighed  the  reasons  in  favor  of 
the  several  places  proposed,  had  given  the  preference  to 
this  province,  and  these  offers  :  That  Doctor  Wheelock 
therefore  represented  the  necessity  of  a  legal  incorpora- 
tion, and  proposed  that  certain  gentlemen  in  America, 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  13 

whom  he  had  already  named  and  appointed  hi  his  will  to 
be  trustees  of  his  charity  after  his  decease,  should  com- 
pose the  corporation.  Upon  this  recital,  and  hi  considera- 
tion of  the  laudable  original  design  of  Doctor  Wheelock, 
and  willing  that  the  best  means  of  education  be  estab- 
lished in  New  Hampshire,  for  the  benefit  of  the  province, 
the  king  granted  the  charter,  by  the  advice  of  his  pro- 
vincial council. 

The  substance  of  the  facts  thus  recited  is,  that  Doctor 
Wheelock  had  founded  a  charity,  on  funds  owned  and 
procured  by  himself ;  that  he  was  at  that  time  the  sole 
dispenser  and  sole  administrator,  as  well  as  the  legal 
owner,  of  these  funds  ;  that  he  had  made  his  will,  devis- 
ing this  property  in  trust,  to  continue  the  existence  and 
uses  of  the  school,  and  appointed  trustees ;  that  in  this 
state  of  things,  he  had  been  invited  to  fix  his  school  per- 
manently in  New  Hampshire,  and  to  extend  the  design 
of  it  to  the  education  of  the  youth  of  that  province  ;  that 
before  he  removed  his  school,  or  accepted  this  invitation, 
which  his  friends  in  England  had  advised  him  to  accept, 
he  applied  for  a  charter,  to  be  granted,  not  to  whomso- 
ever the  king  or  government  of  the  province  should 
please,  but  to  such  persons  as  he  named  and  appointed, 
namely,  the  persons  whom  he  had  already  appointed  to 
be  the  future  trustees  of  his  charity  by  his  will. 

The  charter,  or  letters  patent,  then  proceed  to  create 
such  a  corporation,  and  to  appoint  twelve  persons  to  con- 
stitute it,  by  the  name  of  the  "  Trustees  of  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege ; "  to  have  perpetual  existence,  as  such  corporation, 
and  with  power  to  hold  and  dispose  of  lands  and  goods, 
for  the  use  of  the  college  with  all  the  ordinary  powers  of 
corporations.  They  are  in  their  discretion  to  apply  the 
funds  and  property  of  the  college  to  the  support  of  the 
president,  tutors,  ministers,  and  other  officers  of  the  col- 
lege, and  such  missionaries  and  schoolmasters  as  they 


14:  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

may  see  fit  to  employ  among  the  Indians.  There  are  to 
be  twelve  trustees  forever,  and  no  more  ;  and  they  are  to 
have  the  right  of  filling  vacancies  occurring  hi  their  own 
body.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Wheelock  is  declared  to  be  the 
founder  of  the  college,  and  is,  by  the  charter,  appointed 
first  president,  with  power  to  appoint  a  successor  by  his 
last  will.  All  proper  powers  of  government,  superinten- 
dence, and  visitation  are  vested  hi  the  trustees.  They  are 
to  appoint  and  remove  all  officers  at  their  discretion;  to 
fix  their  salaries,  and  assign  their  duties ;  and  to  make  all 
ordinances,  orders,  and  laws  for  the  government  of  the 
students.  And  to  the  end  that  the  persons  who  had  acted 
as  depositaries  of  the  contributions  in  England,  and  who 
had  also  been  contributors  themselves,  might  be  satisfied 
of  the  good  use  of  their  contributions,  the  president  was 
annually,  or  when  required,  to  transmit  to  them  an  ac- 
count of  the  progress  of  the  institution  and  the  disburse- 
ments of  its  funds,  so  long  as  they  should  continue  to  act 
in  that  trust.  These  letters  patent  are  to  be  good  and  ef- 
fectual, in  law,  against  the  king,  his  heirs  and  successors 
forever,  without  further  grant  or  confirmation ;  and  the 
trustees  are  to  hold  all  and  singular  these  privileges,  ad- 
vantages, liberties,  and  immunities  to  them  and  to  their 
successors  forever. 

No  funds  are  given  to  the  college  by  this  charter.  A 
corporate  existence  and  capacity  are  given  to  the  trustees, 
with  the  privileges  and  immunities  which  have  been  men- 
tioned, to  enable  the  founder  and  his  associates  the  better 
to  manage  the  funds  which  they  themselves  had  contrib- 
uted, and  such  others  as  they  might  afterwards  obtain. 

After  the  institution  thus  created  and  constituted  had 
existed,  uninterruptedly  and  usefully,  nearly  fifty  years, 
the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  passed  the  acts  in  ques- 
tion. 

The  first  act  makes  the  twelve  trustees  under  the 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  15 

charter,  and  nine  other  individuals,  to  be  appointed  by 
the  governor  and  council,  a  corporation,  by  a  new  name ; 
and  to  this  new  corporation  transfers  all  the  property, 
rights,  powers,  liberties,  and  privileges  of  the  old  corpora- 
tion ;  with  further  power  to  establish  new  colleges  and 
an  institute,  and  to  apply  all  or  any  part  of  the  funds  to 
these  purposes ;  subject  to  the  power  and  control  of  a 
board  of  twenty-five  overseers,  to  be  appointed  by  the 
governor  and  council. 

The  second  act  makes  further  provisions  for  executing 
the  objects  of  the  first,  and  the  last  act  authorizes  the  de- 
fendant, the  treasurer  of  the  plaintiffs,  to  retain  and  hold 
their  property,  against  their  will. 

If  these  acts  are  valid,  the  old  corporation  is  abolished, 
and  a  new  one  created.  The  first  act  does,  in  fact,  if  it 
can  have  any  effect,  create  a  new  corporation,  and  trans- 
fer to  it  all  the  property  and  franchises  of  the  old.  The 
two  corporations  are  not  the  same,  in  anything  which  es- 
sentially belongs  to  the  existence  of  a  corporation.  They 
have  different  names,  and  different  powers,  rights,  and 
duties.  Their  organization  is  wholly  different.  The 
powers  of  the  corporation  are  not  vested  hi  the  same,  or 
similar  hands.  In  one,  the  trustees  are  twelve,  and  no 
more.  In  the  other,  they  are  twenty-one.  In  one,  the 
power  is  in  a  single  board.  In  the  other,  it  is  divided  be- 
tween two  boards.  Although  the  act  professes  to  include 
the  old  trustees  in  the  new  corporation,  yet  that  was  with- 
out their  assent,  and  against  their  remonstrance ;  and  no 
person  can  be  compelled  to  be  a  member  of  such  a  corpora- 
tion against  his  will.  It  was  neither  expected  nor  in- 
tended that  they  should  be  members  of  the  new  corpora- 
tion. The  act  itself  treats  the  old  corporation  as  at  an 
end,  and  going  on  the  ground  that  all  its  functions  have 
ceased,  it  provides  for  the  first  meeting  and  organization 
of  the  new  corporation.  It  expressly  provides,  also,  that 


16  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

the  new  corporation  shall  have  and  hold  all  the  property 
of  the  old ;  a  provision  which  would  be  quite  unnecessary 
upon  any  other  ground,  than  that  the  old  corporation  was 
dissolved.  But  if  it  could  be  contended  that  the  effect  of 
these  acts  was  not  entirely  to  abolish  the  old  corporation, 
yet  it  is  manifest  that  they  impair  and  invade  the  rights, 
property,  and  powers  of  the  trustees  under  the  charter, 
as  a  corporation,  and  the  legal  rights,  privileges,  and  im- 
munities which  belong  to  them,  as  individual  members  of 
the  corporation. 

The  twelve  trustees  were  the  sole  legal  owners  of  all 
the  property  acquired  under  the  charter.  By  the  acts, 
others  are  admitted,  against  their  will,  to  be  joint  owners. 
The  twelve  individuals  who  are  trustees  were  possessed 
of  all  the  franchises  and  immunities  conferred  by  the 
charter.  By  the  acts,  nine  other  trustees  and  twenty-five 
overseers  are  admitted,  against  their  will,  to  divide  these 
franchises  and  immunities  with  them. 

If,  either  as  a  corporation  or  as  individuals,  they  have 
any  legal  rights,  this  forcible  intrusion  of  others  violates 
those  rights  as  manifestly  as  an  entire  and  complete  ouster 
and  dispossession.  These  acts  alter  the  whole  constitution 
of  the  corporation.  They  affect  the  rights  of  the  whole 
body  as  a  corporation,  and  the  rights  of  the  individuals 
who  compose  it.  They  revoke  corporate  powers  and  fran- 
chises. They  alienate  and  transfer  the  property  of  the 
college  to  others.  By  the  charter,  the  trustees  had  a  right 
to  fill  vacancies  in  their  own  number.  This  is  now  taken 
away.  They  were  to  consist  of  twelve,  and,  by  express 
provision,  of  no  more.  This  is  altered.  They  and  their 
successors,  appointed  by  themselves,  were  forever  to  hold 
the  property.  The  legislature  has  found  successors  for 
them,  before  their  seats  are  vacant.  The  powers  and 
privileges  which  the  twelve  were  to  exercise  exclusively, 
are  now  to  be  exercised  by  others.  By  one  of  the  acts, 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  17 

they  are  subjected  to  heavy  penalties  if  they  exercise  their 
offices,  or  any  of  those  powers  and  privileges  granted  them 
by  charter,  and  which  they  had  exercised  for  fifty  years. 
They  are  to  be  punished  for  not  accepting  the  new  grant, 
and  taking  its  benefits.  This,  it  must  be  confessed,  is 
rather  a  summary  mode  of  settling  a  question  of  constitu- 
tional right.  Not  only  are  new  trustees  forced  into  the 
corporation,  but  new  trusts  and  uses  are  created.  The 
college  is  turned  into  a  university.  Power  is  given  to 
create  new  colleges,  and,  to  authorize  any  diversion  of 
the  funds  which  may  be  agreeable  to  the  new  boards, 
sufficient  latitude  is  given  by  the  undefined  power  of 
establishing  an  institute.  To  these  new  colleges,  and  this 
institute,  the  funds  contributed  by  the  founder,  Doctor 
Wheelock,  and  by  the  original  donors,  the  Earl  of  Dart- 
mouth and  others,  are  to  be  applied,  in  plain  and  manifest 
disregard  of  the  uses  to  which  they  were  given. 

The  president,  one  of  the  old  trustees,  had  a  right  to  his 
office,  salary,  and  emoluments,  subject  to  the  twelve 
trustees  alone.  His  title  to  these  is  now  changed,  and  he 
is  made  accountable  to  new  masters.  So  also  all  the  pro- 
fessors and  tutors.  If  the  legislature  can  at  pleasure 
make  these  alterations  and  changes  in  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  plaintiffs,  it  may,  with  equal  propriety, 
abolish  these  rights  and  privileges  altogether.  The  same 
power  which  can  do  any  part  of  this  work  can  accomplish 
the  whole.  And,  indeed,  the  argument  on  which  these 
acts  have  been  hitherto  defended  goes  altogether  on  the 
ground,  that  this  is  such  a  corporation  as  the  legislature 
may  abolish  at  pleasure ;  and  that  its  members  have  no 
rights,  liberties,  franchises,  property,  or  privileges,  which 
the  legislature  may  not  revoke,  annul,  alienate,  or  transfer 
to  others,  whenever  it  sees  fit. 

It  will  be  contended  by  the  plaintiffs,  that  these  acts 
are  not  valid  and  binding  on  them,  without  their  assent, 


18  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

— 1.  Because  they  are  against  common  right,  and  the 
constitution  of  New  Hampshire.  2.  Because  they  are 
repugnant  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

I  am  aware  of  the  limits  which  bound  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  court  in  this  case,  and  that  on  this  record  nothing 
can  be  decided  but  the  single  question,  whether  these  acts 
are  repugnant  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Yet  it  may  assist  in  forming  an  opinion  of  their  true 
nature  and  character  to  compare  them  with  those  fun- 
damental principles  introduced  into  the  state  governments 
for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the  exercise  of  the  legislative 
power,  and  which  the  constitution  of  New  Hampshire 
expresses  with  great  fullness  and  accuracy. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  assert  that  the  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  would  not  have  been  competent  to  pass  the 
acts  in  question,  and  to  make  them  binding  on  the  plain- 
tiffs without  their  assent,  even  if  there  had  been,  in  the 
constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  or  of  the  United  States, 
no  special  restriction  on  their  power,  because  these  acts 
are  not  the  exercise  of  a  power  properly  legislative.* 
Their  object  and  effect  are  to  take  away,  from  one,  rights, 
property,  and  franchises,  and  to  grant  them  to  another. 
This  is  not  the  exercise  of  a  legislative  power.  To  justify 
the  taking  away  of  vested  rights  there  must  be  a  for- 
feiture, to  adjudge  upon  and  declare  which  is  the  proper 
province  of  the  judiciary.  Attainder  and  confiscation  are 
acts  of  sovereign  power,  not  acts  of  legislation.  The 
British  parliament,  among  other  unlimited  powers,  claims 
that  of  altering  and  vacating  charters ;  not  as  an  act  of 
ordinary  legislation,  but  of  uncontrolled  authority.  It  is 
theoretically  omnipotent.  Yet,  in  modern  times,  it  has 
attempted  the  exercise  of  this  power  very  rarely.  In  a 
celebrated  instance,  those  who  asserted  this  power  in 
parliament  vindicated  its  exercise  only  in  a  case  in  which 
*  Calder  et  ux.  v.  Bull,  3  Dallas,  386. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  19 

it  could  be  shown,  1st.  That  the  charter  hi  question 
was  a  charter  of  political  power;  2d.  That  there  was 
a  great  and  overruling  state  necessity,  justifying  the 
violation  of  the  charter ;  3d.  That  the  charter  had  been 
abused  and  justly  forfeited.*  The  bill  affecting  this 
charter  did  not  pass.  Its  history  is  well  known.  The 
act  which  afterwards  did  pass,  passed  with  the  assent  of  the 
corporation.  Even  hi  the  worst  times,  this  power  of 
parliament  to  repeal  and  rescind  charters  has  not  often 
been  exercised.  The  illegal  proceedings  in  the  reign  of 
Charles  the  Second  were  under  color  of  law.  Judgments 
of  forfeiture  were  obtained  in  the  courts.  Such  was  the 
case  of  the  quo  warranto  against  the  city  of  London,  and 
the  proceedings  by  which  the  charter  of  Massachusetts 
was  vacated. 

The  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  has  no  more  power 
over  the  rights  of  the  plaintiffs  than  existed  somewhere, 
in  some  department  of  government,  before  the  revolution. 
The  British  parliament  could  not  have  annulled  or  revoked 
this  grant  as  an  act  of  ordinary  legislation.  If  it  had 
done  it  at  all,  it  could  only  have  been  in  virtue  of  that 
sovereign  power  called  omnipotent  which  does  not  belong 
to  any  legislature  in  the  United  States.  The  legislature 
of  New  Hampshire  has  the  same  power  over  this  charter 
which  belonged  to  the  king  who  granted  it  and  no  more. 
By  the  law  of  England,  the  power  to  create  corporations  is 
a  part  of  the  royal  prerogative.!  By  the  revolution,  this 
power  may  be  considered  as  having  devolved  on  the  leg- 
islature of  the  state,  and  it  has  accordingly  been  exercised 
by  the  legislature.  But  the  king  cannot  abolish  a  corpora- 
tion, or  new-model  it,  or  alter  its  powers,  without  its 

*  Annual  Reg.  1784,  p.  160 ;  Parlia.  Reg.  1783 ;  Mr.  Burke's 
Speech  on  Mr.  Fox's  E.  I.  Bill,  Burke's  Works,  2d  Vol.  pp.  414, 
417,  467,  468,  486. 

f  1  Black.  472,  473. 


20  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

assent.  This  is  the  acknowledged  and  well-known  doc- 
trine of  the  common  law.  "  Whatever  might  have  been 
the  notion  in  former  times,"  says  Lord  Mansfield,  "  it  is 
most  certain  now  that  the  corporations  of  the  universities 
are  lay  corporations ;  and  that  the  crown  cannot  take 
away  from  them  any  rights  that  have  been  formerly  sub- 
sisting in  them  under  old  charters  or  prescriptive  usage."  * 
After  forfeiture  duly  found,  the  king  may  regrant  the 
franchises ;  but  a  grant  of  franchises  already  granted,  and 
of  which  no  forfeiture  has  been  found,  is  void. 

Corporate  franchises  can  only  be  forfeited  by  trial  and 
judgment.!  In  case  of  a  new  charter  or  grant  to  an 
existing  corporation,  it  may  accept  or  reject  it  as  it  pleases,  t 
It  may  accept  such  part  of  the  grant  as  it  chooses,  and 
reject  the  rest.  §  In  the  very  nature  of  things  a  charter  can- 
not be  forced  upon  anybody.  No  one  can  be  compelled  to 
accept  a  grant ;  and  without  acceptance  the  grant  is  neces- 
sarily void.  ||  It  cannnot  be  pretended  that  the  legislature, 
as  successor  to  the  king  in  this  part  of  his  prerogative, 
has  any  power  to  revoke,  vacate,  or  alter  this  charter. 
If,  therefore,  the  legislature  has  not  this  power  by  any 
specific  grant  contained  in  the  constitution;  nor  as  in- 
cluded in  its  ordinary  legislative  powers ;  nor  by  reason 
of  its  succession  to  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown  in  this 
particular,  on  what  ground  would  the  authority  to  pass 
these  acts  rest,  even  if  there  were  no  prohibitory  clauses 
in  the  constitution  and  the  bill  of  rights  ? 

But  there  are  prohibitions  in  the  constitution  and  bill 
of  rights  of  New  Hampshire,  introduced  for  the  purpose 

*  3  Burr.  1656. 

f  3  T.  R.  244.  King  v.  Pasmore. 

i  King  v.  Vice  Chancellor  of  Cambridge,  3  Burr.  1656,  3  T.  R. 
240— Lord  Kenyon. 

§  Idem,  1661,  and  King  v.  Pasmore,  ubi  supra. 

1  Ellis  v.  Marshall,  2  Mass.  Rep.  277  ;  1  Kyd  on  Corporations, 
65-6. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  21 

of  limiting  the  legislative  power  and  protecting  the  rights 
and  property  of  the  citizens.  One  prohibition  is  "  that 
no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  his  property,  immunities, 
or  privileges,  put  out  of  the  protection  of  the  law,  or 
deprived  of  his  life,  liberty,  or  estate,  but  by  judgment 
of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the  land." 

In  the  opinion,  however,  which  was  given  in  the  court 
below,  it  is  denied  that  the  trustees  under  the  charter 
had  any  property,  immunity,  liberty,  or  privilege  in  this 
corporation,  within  the  meaning  of  this  prohibition  in  the 
bill  of  rights.  It  is  said  that  it  is  a  public  corporation 
and  public  property ;  that  the  trustees  have  no  greater 
interest  in  it  than  any  other  individuals ;  that  it  is  not 
private  property,  which  they  can  sell  or  transmit  to  their 
heirs,  and  that  therefore  they  have  no  interest  in  it ;  that 
their  office  is  a  public  trust,  like  that  of  the  governor  or 
a  judge,  and  that  they  have  no  more  concern  in  the  prop- 
erty of  the  college  than  the  governor  in  the  property  of 
the  state,  or  than  the  judges  in  the  fines  which  they  im- 
pose on  the  culprits  at  their  bar ;  that  it  is  nothing  to 
them  whether  their  powers  shall  be  extended  or  lessened, 
any  more  than  it  is  to  their  honors  whether  their  juris- 
diction shall  be  enlarged  or  diminished.  It  is  necessary, 
therefore,  to  inquire  into  the  true  nature  and  character 
of  the  corporation  which  was  created  by  the  charter  of 
1769. 

There  are  divers  sorts  of  corporations ;  and  it  may  be 
safely  admitted  that  the  legislature  has  more  power  over 
some  than  others.*  Some  corporations  are  for  govern- 
ment and  political  arrangement;  such,  for  example,  as 
cities,  counties,  and  towns  in  New  England.  These  may 
be  changed  and  modified  as  public  convenience  may 
require,  due  regard  being  always  had  to  the  rights  of 
property.  Of  such  corporations,  all  who  live  within  the 
»  1  Wooddeson,  474 ;  1  Black.  467. 


22  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

limits  are  of  course  obliged  to  be  members,  and  to  sub- 
mit to  the  duties  which  the  law  imposes  on  them  as  such. 
Other  civil  corporations  are  for  the  advancement  of  trade 
and  business,  such  as  banks,  insurance  companies,  and 
the  like.  These  are  created,  not  by  general  law,  but 
usually  by  grant.  Their  constitution  is  special.  It  is 
such  as  the  legislature  sees  fit  to  give,  and  the  grantees 
to  accept. 

The  corporation  hi  question  is  not  a  civil,  although  it 
is  a  lay  corporation.  It  is  an  eleemosynary  corporation. 
It  is  a  private  charity,  originally  founded  and  endowed  by 
an  individual,  with  a  charter  obtained  for  it  at  his  request, 
for  the  better  administration  of  his  charity.  "The 
eleemosynary  sort  of  corporations  are  such  as  are  con- 
stituted for  the  perpetual  distributions  of  the  free  alms 
or  bounty  of  the  founder  of  them,  to  such  persons  as  he 
has  directed.  Of  this  are  all  hospitals  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  poor,  sick,  and  impotent ;  and  all  colleges 
both  in  our  universities  and  out  of  them."  *  Eleemosy- 
nary corporations  are  for  the  management  of  private 
property,  according  to  the  will  of  the  donors.  They  are 
private  corporations.  A  college  is  as  much  a  private 
corporation  as  a  hospital;  especially  a  college  founded, 
as  this  was,  by  private  bounty.  A  college  is  a  charity. 
"  The  establishment  of  learning,"  says  Lord  Hardwicke, 
"  is  a  charity,  and  so  considered  in  the  statute  of  Elizabeth. 
A  devise  to  a  college,  for  their  benefit,  is  a  laudable 
charity,  and  deserves  encouragement."! 

The  legal  signification  of  a  charity  is  derived  chiefly 
from  the  statute  43  Eliz.  ch.  4.  "  Those  purposes,"  says 
Sir  "William  Grant,  "  are  considered  charitable  which 
that  statute  enumerates."  t  Colleges  are  enumerated  as 
charities  in  that  statute.  The  government,  in  these  cases, 
lends  its  aid  to  perpetuate  the  beneficent  intention  of  the 
*  1  Black.  471.  \  1  Ves.  537.  J:  9  Ves.  Jun.  405. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  23 

donor,  by  granting  a  charter  under  which  his  private 
charity  shall  continue  to  be  dispensed  after  his  death. 
This  is  done  either  by  incorporating  the  objects  of  the 
charity,  as,  for  instance,  the  scholars  hi  a  college  or  the 
poor  in  a  hospital,  or  by  incorporating  those  who  are  to 
be  governors  or  trustees  of  the  charity.*  In  cases  of  the 
first  sort,  the  founder  is,  by  the  common  law,  visitor.  In 
early  times  it  became  a  maxim,  that  he  who  gave  the 
property  might  regulate  it  in  future.  Cujus  est  dart,  ejus 
est  disponere.  This  right  of  visitation  descended  from 
the  founder  to  his  heir  as  a  right  of  property,  and  pre- 
cisely as  his  other  property  went  to  his  heir ;  and  in  de- 
fault of  heirs  it  went  to  the  king,  as  all  other  property 
goes  to  the  king  for  the  want  of  heirs.  The  right  of 
visitation  arises  from  the  property.  It  grows  out  of  the 
endowment.  The  founder  may,  if  he  please,  part  with  it 
at  the  time  when  he  establishes  the  charity,  and  may 
vest  it  in  others.  Therefore,  if  he  chooses  that  gover- 
nors, trustees,  or  overseers  should  be  appointed  in  the 
charter,  he  may  cause  it  to  be  done,  and  his  power  of 
visitation  will  be  transferred  to  them,  instead  of  descend- 
ing to  his  heirs.  The  persons  thus  assigned  or  appointed 
by  the  founder  will  be  visitors,  with  all  the  powers  of 
the  founder,  in  exclusion  of  his  heir.f  The  right  of 
visitation,  then,  accrues  to  them,  as  a  matter  of  property, 
by  the  gift,  transfer,  or  appointment  of  the  founder. 
This  is  a  private  right,  which  they  can  assert  in  all  legal 
modes,  and  in  which  they  have  the  same  protection  of 
the  law  as  in  all  other  rights.  As  visitors  they  may 
make  rules,  ordinances,  and  statutes,  and  alter  and  repeal 
them,  as  far  as  permitted  so  to  do  by  the  charter.  \ 
Although  the  charter  proceeds  from  the  crown  or  the 
government^  it  is  considered  as  the  will  of  the  donor. 
It  is  obtained  at  his  request.  He  imposes  it  as  the  rule 
*  J  Wood.  474,  f  1  Black.  471,  %  2  Term  Rep.  350-1. 


24  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

which  is  to  prevail  in  the  dispensation  of  his  bounty  in 
all  future  times.  The  king  or  government  which  grants 
the  charter  is  not  thereby  the  founder,  but  he  who 
furnishes  the  funds.  The  gift  of  the  revenues  is  the 
foundation.*  The  leading  case  on  this  subject  is  Phillips 
y.  Bury.f  This  was  an  ejectment  brought  to  recover  the 
rectory-house,  etc.,  of  Exeter  College  in  Oxford.  The 
question  was,  whether  the  plaintiff  or  defendant  was 
legal  rector.  Exeter  College  was  founded  by  an  in- 
dividual, and  incorporated  by  a  charter  granted  by  Queen 
Elizabeth.  The  controversy  turned  upon  the  power  of 
the  visitor,  and  in  the  discussion  of  the  cause,  the  nature 
of  college  charters  and  corporations  was  very  fully  con- 
sidered. Lord  Holt's  judgment,  copied  from  his  own 
manuscript,  is  in  2  Term  Rep.,  346.  The  following  is  an 
extract : 

"  That  we  may  the  better  apprehend  the  nature  of  a  visitor, 
we  are  to  consider  that  there  are  in  law  two  sorts  of  corporations 
aggregate  ;  such  as  are  for  public  government,  and  such  as  are 
for  private  charity.  Those  that  are  for  the  public  government 
of  a  town,  city,  mystery,  or  the  like,  being  for  public  advantage, 
are  to  be  governed  according  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  If  they 
make  any  particular  private  laws  and  constitutions,  the  validity 
and  justice  of  them  is  examinable  in  the  king's  court.  Of 
these  there  are  no  particular  private  founders,  and  consequently 
no  particular  visitor  ;  there  are  no  patrons  of  these  ;  therefore, 
if  no  provision  be  in  the  charter  how  the  succession  shall  con- 
tinue, the  law  supplieth  the  defect  of  that  constitution,  and 
saith  it  shall  be  by  election  ;  as  mayor,  alderman,  common  coun- 
cil, and  the  like.  But  private  and  particular  corporations  for 
charity,  founded  and  endowed  by  private  persons,  are  subject  to 
the  private  government  of  those  who  erect  them  ;  and  therefore, 
if  there  be  no  visitor  appointed  by  the  founder,  the  law  appoints 
the  founder  and  his  heirs  to  be  visitors,  who  are  to  act  and  pro- 

*  1  Black,  480. 

f  Reported  in  1  Lord  Raymond,  5  ;  Comb.  265  ;  Holt,  715 ;  1 
Show.  360  ;  4  Mod.  106  ;  Skinn.  447. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  25 

ceed  according  to  the  particular  laws  and  constitutions  assigned 
them  by  the  founder.  It  is  now  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the 
founder  is  patron,  and,  as  founder,  is  visitor,  if  no  particular 
visitor  be  assigned  ;  so  that  patronage  and  visitation  are  neces- 
sary consequents  one  upon  another.  For  this  visitatorial  power 
was  not  introduced  by  any  canons  or  constitutions  ecclesiastical 
(as  was  said  by  a  learned  gentleman  whom  I  have  in  my  eye,  in 
his  argument  of  this  case)  :  it  is  an  appointment  of  law.  It 
ariseth  from  the  property  which  the  founder  had  in  the  lands 
assigned  to  support  the  charity  ;  and  as  he  is  the  author  of  the 
charity,  the  law  gives  him  and  his  heirs  a  visitatorial  power,  that 
is,  an  authority  to  inspect  the  actions  and  regulate  the  behavior 
of  the  members  that  partake  of  the  charity.  For  it  is  fit  the 
members  that  are  endowed,  and  that  have  the  charity  bestowed 
upon  them,  should  not  be  left  to  themselves,  but  pursue  the  in- 
tent and  design  of  him  that  bestowed  it  upon  them.  Now  indeed, 
where  the  poor,  or  those  that  receive  the  charity,  are  not  incor- 
porated, but  there  are  certain  trustees  who  dispose  of  the  charity, 
there  is  no  visitor,  because  the  interest  of  the  revenue  is  not  vested 
in  the  poor  that  have  the  benefit  of  the  charity,  but  they  are  sub- 
ject to  the  orders  and  directions  of  the  trustees.  But  where  they 
who  are  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  charity  are  incorporated, 
there  to  prevent  all  perverting  of  the  charity,  or  to  compose 
differences  that  may  happen  among  them,  there  is  by  law  a  visita- 
torial power ;  and  it  being  a  creature  of  the  founder's  own,  it  is 
reason  that  he  and  his  heirs  should  have  that  power,  unless  by 
the  founder  it  is  vested  in  some  other.  Now  there  is  no  manner 
of  difference  between  a  college  and  a  hospital,  except  only  in 
degree.  A  hospital  is  for  those  that  are  poor,  and  mean,  and 
low,  and  sickly  ;  a  college  is  for  another  sore  of  indigent  person  ; 
but  it  hath  another  intent,  to  study  in  and  breed  up  persons  in 
the  world  that  have  no  otherwise  to  live  ;  but  still  it  is  as  much 
within  the  reasons  as  hospitals.  And  if  in  a  hospital  the  master 
and  poor  are  incorporated,  it  is  a  college  having  a  common  seal 
to  act  by,  although  it  hath  not  the  name  of  a  college  (which 
always  supposeth  a  corporation,)  because  it  is  of  an  inferior  de- 
gree ;  and  in  the  one  case  and  in  the  other  there  must  be  a 
visitor,  either  the  founder  and  his  heirs  or  one  appointed  by  him ; 
and  both  are  eleemosynary." 

Lord  Holt  concludes  his  whole  argument  by  again  re- 
peating, that  that  college  was  a  private  corporation,  and 


26  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

that  the  founder  had  a  right  to  appoint  a  visitor,  and  to 
give  him  such  power  as  he  saw  fit.* 

The  learned  Bishop  Stillingfleet's  argument  in  the  same 
cause,  as  a  member  of  the  house  of  lords,  when  it  was 
there  heard,  exhibits  very  clearly  the  nature  of  colleges 
and  similar  corporations.  It  is  to  the  following  effect. 
"  That  this  absolute  and  conclusive  power  of  visitors  is 
no  more  than  the  law  hath  appointed  in  other  cases,  upon 
commissions  of  charitable  uses:  that  the  common  law, 
and  not  any  ecclesiastical  canons,  do  place  the  power  of 
visitation  in  the  founder  and  his  heirs,  unless  he  settle  it 
upon  others  :  that  although  corporations  for  public  govern- 
ment be  subject  to  the  courts  of  Westminster  Hall, 
which  have  no  particular  or  special  visitors,  yet  corpora- 
tions for  charity,  founded  and  endowed  by  private  per- 
sons, are  subject  to  the  rule  and  government  of  those  that 
erect  them ;  but  where  the  persons  to  whom  the  charity 
is  given  are  not  incorporated,  there  is  no  such  visitatorial 
power,  because  the  interest  of  the  revenue  is  not  invested 
in  them ;  but  where  they  are,  the  right  of  visitation  aris- 
eth  from  the  foundation,  and  the  founder  may  convey  it 
to  whom  and  in  what  manner  he  pleases  ;  and  the  visitor 
acts  as  founder,  and  by  the  same  authority  which  he  had, 
and  consequently  is  no  more  accountable  than  he  had  been : 
that  the  king  by  his  charter  can  make  a  society  to  be  in- 
corporated so  as  to  have  the  rights  belonging  to  persons, 
as  to  legal  capacities :  that  colleges,  although  founded  by 
private  persons,  are  yet  incorporated  by  the  king's  char- 
ter ;  but  although  the  kings  by  their  charter  made  the 
colleges  to  be  such  in  law,  that  is,  to  be  legal  corpora- 
tions, yet  they  left  to  the  particular  founders  authority 
to  appoint  what  statutes  they  thought  fit  for  the  regula- 
tion of  them.  And  not  only  the  statutes,  but  the  ap- 
pointment of  visitors,  was  left  to  them,  and  the  manner 
*  1  Lord  Ray.  9. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  27 

of  government,  and  the  several  conditions  on  which  any 
persons  were  to  be  made  or  continue  partakers  of  their 
bounty."  * 

These  opinions  received  the  sanction  of  the  house  of 
lords,  and  they  seem  to  be  settled  and  undoubted  law. 
Where  there  is  a  charter,  vesting  proper  powers  in  trus- 
tees, or  governors,  they  are  visitors ;  and  there  is  no  con- 
trol in  anybody  else;  except  only  that  the  courts  of 
equity  or  of  law  will  interfere  so  far  as  to  preserve  the 
revenues  and  prevent  the  perversion  of  the  funds,  and  to 
keep  the  visitors  within  their  prescribed  bounds.  "If 
there  be  a  charter  with  proper  powers,  the  charity  must 
be  regulated  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  charter. 
There  is  no  ground  for  the  controlling  interposition  of 
the  courts  of  chancery.  The  interposition  of  the  courts, 
therefore,  in  those  instances  in  which  the  charities  were 
founded  on  charters  or  by  act  of  parliament,  and  a  visitor 
or  governor  and  trustees  appointed,  must  be  referred  to 
the  general  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  in  all  cases  in  which 
a  trust  conferred  appears  to  have  been  abused,  and  not  to 
an  original  right  to  direct  the  management  of  the  charity, 
or  the  conduct  of  the  governors  or  trustees."  f  "  The 
original  of  all  visitatorial  power  is  the  property  of  the 
donor,  and  the  power  every  one  has  to  dispose,  direct, 
and  regulate  his  own  property ;  like  the  case  of  patron- 
age ;  cujus  est  dare,  etc.  Therefore,  if  either  the  crown 
or  the  subject  creates  an  eleemosynary  foundation,  and 
vests  the  charity  in  the  persons  who  are  to  receive  the 
benefit  of  it,  since  a  contest  might  arise  about  the  govern- 
ment of  it,  the  law  allows  the  founder  or  his  heirs,  or  the 
person  specially  appointed  by  him  to  be  visitor,  to  deter- 
mine concerning  his  own  creature.  If  the  charity  is  not 
vested  in  the  persons  who  are  to  partake,  but  in  trustees 

*  See  Appendix,  No.  3—1  Burn's  Eccles.  Law,  443. 
f  2  Fonb.  305-8. 


28  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

for  their  benefit,  no  visitor  can  arise  by  implication,  but 
the  trustees  have  that  power."  * 

"  There  is  nothing  better  established,"  says  Lord  Com' 
missioner  Eyre,  "  than  that  this  court  does  not  entertain 
a  general  jurisdiction,  or  regulate  and  control  charities 
established  by  charter.  There  the  establishment  is  fixed 
and  determined  and  the  court  has  no  power  to  vary  it. 
If  the  governors  established  for  the  regulation  of  it  are 
not  those  who  have  the  management  of  the  revenue,  this 
court  has  no  jurisdiction,  and  if  it  is  ever  so  much  abused, 
as  far  as  it  respects  the  jurisdiction  of  this  court  it  is 
without  remedy;  but  if  those  established  as  governors 
have  also  the  management  of  the  revenues,  this  court 
does  assume  a  jurisdiction  of  necessity,  so  far  as  they  are 
to  be  considered  as  trustees  of  the  revenue."  f 

"The  foundations  of  colleges,"  says  Lord  Mansfield, 
"  are  to  be  considered  in  two  views  ;  namely,  as  they  are 
corporations  and  as  they  are  eleemosynary.  As  eleemosy- 
nary, they  are  the  creatures  of  the  founder ;  he  may  dele- 
gate his  power,  either  generally  or  specially ;  he  may  pre- 
scribe particular  modes  and  manners,  as  to  the  exer- 
cise of  part  of  it.  If  he  makes  a  general  visitor  (as 
by  the  general  words  visitator  sit,)  the  person  so  con- 
stituted has  all  incidental  power ;  but  he  may  be  re- 
strained as  to  particular  instances.  The  founder  may  ap- 
point a  special  visitor  for  a  particular  purpose,  and  no 
further.  The  founder  may  make  a  general  visitor ;  and 
yet  appoint  an  inferior  particular  power,  to  be  executed 
without  going  to  the  visitor  in  the  first  instance."t  And 
even  if  the  king  be  founder,  if  he  grant  a  charter,  in- 

*  1  Ves.  472,  Green  v.  Rutherforth,  per  Lord  Hardwicke. 

f  Attorney  General  v.  Foundling  Hospital,  2  Ves.  Jun.  47. 
Vide  also  2  Kyd  on  Corporations,  195  ;  Cooper's  Equity  Pleading, 
292. 

\  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  v.  Todington,  1  Burr.  200. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  99 

corporating  trustees  and  governors,  they  are  visitors,  and 
the  king  cannot  visit.*  A  subsequent  donation,  or  in- 
grafted  fellowship,  falls  under  the  same  general  visitatorial 
power,  if  not  otherwise  specially  provided. f 

In  New  England,  and  perhaps  throughout  the  United 
States,  eleemosynary  corporations  have  been  generally 
established  in  the  latter  mode  ;  that  is,  by  incorporating 
governors,  or  trustees,  and  vesting  in  them  the  right  of 
visitation.  Small  variations  may  have  been  in  some  in- 
stances adopted  ;  as  in  the  case  of  Harvard  College,  where 
some  power  of  inspection  is  given  to  the  overseers,  but 
not,  strictly  speaking,  a  visitatorial  power,  which  still  be- 
longs, it  is  apprehended,  to  the  fellows  or  members  of  the 
corporation.  In  general,  there  are  many  donors.  A 
charter  is  obtained,  comprising  them  all,  or  some  of  them, 
and  such  others  as  they  choose  to  include,  with  the  right 
of  appointing  their  successors.  They  are  thus  the  visitors 
of  their  own  charity,  and  appoint  others,  such  as  they  may 
see  fit,  to  exercise  the  same  office  in  time  to  come.  All 
such  corporations  are  private.  The  case  before  the  court 
is  clearly  that  of  an  eleemosynary  corporation.  It  is,  in 
the  strictest  legal  sense,  a  private  charity.  In  King  v.  St. 
Catharine's  Hall,t  that  college  is  called  a  private  eleemosy- 
nary lay  corporation.  It  was  endowed  by  a  private 
founder,  and  incorporated  by  letters  patent.  And  in  the 
same  manner  was  Dartmouth  College  founded  and  incor- 
porated. Doctor  Wheelock  is  declared  by  the  charter  to 
be  its  founder.  It  was  established  by  him,  on  funds  con- 
tributed and  collected  by  himself. 

As  such  founder,  he  had  a  right  of  visitation,  which  he 
assigned  to  the  trustees,  and  they  received  it  by  his  con- 

*  Attorney  General  v.  Middleton,  2  Ves.  328. 
f  Green  v.  Rutherforth,  ubi  supra ;  St.  John's  College,  v.  Tod- 
ing  ton,  ubi  supra. 
1 4  Term.  Rep.  233. 


30  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

sent  and  appointment,  and  held  it  under  the  charter.! 
He  appointed  these  trustees  visitors,  and  in  that  respect 
to  take  place  of  his  heir  ;  as  he  might  have  appointed  dev- 
isees, to  take  his  estate  instead  of  his  heir.  Little,  prob- 
ably, did  he  think  at  that  time,  that  the  legislature  would 
ever  take  away  this  property  and  these  privileges,  and 
give  them  to  others.  Little  did  he  suppose  that  this 
charter  secured  to  him  and  his  successors  no  legal  rights. 
Little  did  the  other  donors  think  so.  If  they  had,  the 
college  would  have  been,  what  the  university  is  now,  a 
thing  upon  paper,  existing  only  in  name. 

The  numerous  academies  in  New  England  have  been 
established  substantially  in  the  same  manner.  They  hold 
their  property  by  the  same  tenure,  and  no  other.  Nor 
has  Harvard  College  any  surer  title  than  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege. It  may  to-day  have  more  friends ;  but  to-morrow 
it  may  have  more  enemies.  Its  legal  rights  are  the  same. 
So  also  of  Yale  College ;  and,  indeed,  of  all  the  others. 
When  the  legislature  gives  to  these  institutions,  it  may 
and  does  accompany  its  grants  with  such  conditions  as  it 
pleases.  The  grant  of  lands  by  the  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  to  Dartmouth  College,  in  1789,  was  accom- 
panied with  various  conditions.  When  donations  are 
made,  by  the  legislature  or  others,  to  a  charity  already 
existing,  without  any  condition,  or  the  specification  of  any 
new  use,  the  donation  follows  the  nature  of  the  charity. 
Hence  the  doctrine,  that  all  eleemosynary  corporations 
are  private  bodies.  They  are  founded  by  private  persons, 
and  on  private  property.  The  public  cannot  be  charitable 
in  these  institutions.  It  is  not  the  money  of  the  public, 
but  of  private  persons,  which  is  dispensed.  It  may  be 
public,  that  is  general,  in  its  uses  and  advantages ;  and 
the  state  may  very  laudably  add  contributions  of  its  own 
to  the  funds ;  but  it  is  still  private  in  the  tenure  of 
*  Black,  ubi  supra. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  31 

the  property,    and  in  the  right  of  administering  the 
funds. 

If  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  Lord  Holt,  and  the  house 
of  lords,  in  Phillips  v.  Bury,  and  recognized  and  estab- 
lished in  all  the  other  cases,  be  correct,  the  property  of 
this  college  was  private  property ;  it  was  vested  in  the 
trustees  by  the  charter,  and  to  be  administered  by  them, 
according  to  the  will  of  the  founder  and  donors,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  charter.  They  were  also  visitors  of  the 
charity,  in  the  most  ample  sense.  They  had,  there- 
fore, as  they  contend,  privileges,  property,  and  immu- 
nities, within  the  true  meaning  of  the  bill  of  rights. 
They  had  rights,  and  still  have  them,  which  they  can  as- 
sert against  the  legislature,  as  well  as  against  other  wrong- 
doers. It  makes  no  difference,  that  the  estate  is  holden 
for  certain  trusts.  The  legal  estate  is  still  theirs.  They 
have  a  right  in  the  property,  and  they  have  a  right  of 
visiting  and  superintending  the  trust ;  and  this  is  an  ob- 
ject of  legal  protection,  as  much  as  any  other  right.  The 
charter  declares  that  the  powers  conferred  on  the  trus- 
tees are  "  privileges,  advantages,  liberties,  and  immuni- 
ties ;  "  and  that  they  shall  be  forever  holden  by  them  and 
their  successors.  The  New  Hampshire  bill  of  rights  de- 
clares that  no  one  shall  be  deprived  of  his  "  property, 
privileges,  or  immunities,"  but  by  judgment  of  his  peers, 
or  the  law  of  the  land.  The  argument  on  the  other  side 
is,  that,  although  these  terms  may  mean  something  in  the 
bill  of  rights,  they  mean  nothing  in  this  charter.  But 
they  are  terms  of  legal  signification,  and  very  properly 
used  in  the  charter.  They  are  equivalent  with  franchises. 
Blackstone  says  that  franchise  and  liberty  are  used  as 
synonymous  terms.  And  after  enumerating  other  liber- 
ties and  franchises,  he  says :  "  It  is  likewise  a  franchise 
for  a  number  of  persons  to  be  incorporated  and  subsist  as 
Q.  body  politic,  with  a  power  to  maintain  perpetual  succes- 


32  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

sion  and  do  other  corporate  acts ;  and  each  individual 
member  of  such  a  corporation  is  also  said  to  have  a  fran- 
chise or  freedom."  * 

Liberties  is  the  term  used  in  Magna  Charta  as  including 
franchises,  privileges,  immunities,  and  all  the  rights  which 
belong  to  that  class.  Professor  Sullivan  says,  the  term 
signifies  the  "privileges  that  some  of  the  subjects,  whether 
single  persons  or  bodies  corporate,  have  above  others  by 
the  lawful  grant  of  the  king ;  as  the  chattels  of  felons  or 
outlaws,  and  the  lands  and  privileges  of  corporations"^ 

The  privilege,  then,  of  being  a  member  of  a  corporation, 
under  a  lawful  grant,  and  of  exercising  the  rights  and 
powers  of  such  member,  is  such  a  privilege,  liberty  or  fran- 
chise, as  has  been  the  object  of  legal  protection,  and  the 
subject  of  a  legal  interest,  from  the  time  of  Magna  Charta 
to  the  present  moment.  The  plaintiffs  have  such  an  in- 
terest in  this  corporation,  individually,  as  they  could  as- 
sert and  maintain  in  a  court  of  law,  not  as  agents  of  the 
public,  but  in  their  own  right.  Each  trustee  has  a  fran- 
chise, and  if  he  be  disturbed  in  the  enjoyment  of  it,  he 
would  have  redress,  on  appealing  to  the  law,  as  promptly 
as  for  any  other  injury.  If  the  other  trustees  should  con- 
spire against  any  one  of  them  to  prevent  his  equal  right 
and  voice  in  the  appointment  of  a  president  or  professor, 
or  in  the  passing  of  any  statute  or  ordinance  of  the  col- 
lege, he  would  be  entitled  to  his  action,  for  depriving  him 
of  his  franchise.  It  makes  no  difference,  that  this  prop- 
erty is  to  be  holden  and  administered,  and  these  fran- 
chises exercised,  for  the  purpose  of  diffusing  learning. 
Xo  principle  and  no  case  establishes  any  such  distinction. 
The  public  may  be  benefited  by  the  use  of  this  property. 
But  this  does  not  change  the  nature  of  the  property,  or 
the  rights  of  the  owners.  The  object  of  the  charter  may 
be  public  good ;  so  it  is  in  all  other  corporations ;  and 
*  2  Black.  Com.  37.  t  Sull.  41st  Lect. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  33 

this  would  as  well  justify  the  resumption  or  violation  of 
the  grant  in  any  other  case  as  hi  this.  In  the  case  of  an 
advowson,  the  use  is  public,  and  the  right  cannot  be 
turned  to  any  private  benefit  or  emolument.  It  is  never- 
theless a  legal  private  right,  and  the  property  of  the 
owner,  as  emphatically  as  his  freehold.  The  rights  and 
privileges  of  trustees,  visitors,  or  governors  of  incorpo- 
rated colleges,  stand  on  the  same  foundation.  They  are  so 
considered,  both  by  Lord  Holt  and  Lord  Hardwicke.* 

To  contend  that  the  rights  of  the  plaintiffs  may  be  taken 
away,  because  they  derive  from  them  no  pecuniary  benefit 
or  private  emolument,  or  because  they  cannot  be  trans- 
mitted to  their  heirs,  or  would  not  be  assets  to  pay  their 
debts,  is  taking  an  extremely  narrow  view  of  the  subject. 
According  to  this  notion,  the  case  would  be  different,  if, 
in  the  charter,  they  had  stipulated  for  a  commission  on 
the  disbursement  of  the  funds ;  and  they  have  ceased  to 
have  any  interest  in  the  property,  because  they  have  un- 
dertaken to  administer  it  gratuitously. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  say  much  in  refutation  of  the 
idea,  that  there  cannot  be  a  legal  interest,  or  ownership, 
in  anything  which  does  not  yield  a  pecuniary  profit ;  as  if 
the  law  regarded  no  rights  but  the  rights  of  money,  and 
of  visible,  tangible  property.  Of  what  nature  are  all  rights 
of  suffrage  ?  No  elector  has  a  particular  personal  inter- 
est ;  but  each  has  a  legal  right,  to  be  exercised  at  his  own 
discretion,  and  it  cannot  be  taken  away  from  him.  The 
exercise  of  this  right  directly  and  very  materially  affects 
the  public ;  much  more  so  than  the  exercise  of  the  priv- 
ileges of  a  trustee  of  this  college.  Consequences  of  the 
utmost  magnitude  may  sometimes  depend  on  the  exercise 
of  the  right  of  suffrage  by  one  or  a  few  electors.  Nobody 
was  ever  yet  heard  to  contend,  however,  that  on  that  ac- 

*  Phillips  v.  Bury. — Green  v.  Rutherforth,  tt&i  supra.  Vide 
also  2  Black.  21. 


34  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

count  the  public  might  take  away  the  right,  or  impair  it. 
This  notion  appears  to  be  borrowed  from  no  better  source 
than  the  repudiated  doctrine  of  the  three  judges  in  the 
Aylesbury  case.*  That  was  an  action  against  a  returning 
officer  for  refusing  the  plaintiff's  vote,  in  the  election  of  a 
member  of  parliament.  Three  of  the  judges  of  the  king's 
bench  held, -that  the  action  could  not  be  maintained,  be- 
cause, among  other  objections,  "  it  was  not  any  matter  of 
profit,  either  in presenti,  or  infuturo"  It  would  not  en- 
rich the  plaintiff  inpresenti,  nor  would  it  infuturo  go  to 
his  heirs,  or  answer  to  pay  his  debts.  But  Lord  Holt  and 
the  house  of  lords  were  of  another  opinion.  The  judgment 
of  the  three  judges  was  reversed,  and  the  doctrine  they 
held,  having  been  exploded  for  a  century,  seems  now  for 
the  first  time  to  be  revived. 

Individuals  have  a  right  to  use  their  own  property  for 
purposes  of  benevolence,  either  towards  the  public,  or 
towards  other  individuals.  They  have  a  right  to  exercise 
this  benevolence  in  such  lawful  manner  as  they  may 
choose;  and  when  the  government  has  induced  and 
excited  it,  by  contracting  to  give  perpetuity  to  the  stipu- 
lated manner  of  exercising  it,  to  rescind  this  contract, 
and  seize  on  the  property,  is  not  law,  but  violence. 
Whether  the  state  will  grant  these  franchises,  and  under 
what  conditions  it  will  grant  them,  it  decides  for  itself. 
But  when  once  granted,  the  constitution  holds  them  to  be 
sacred,  till  forfeited  for  just  cause. 

That  all  property,  of  which  the  use  may  be  beneficial 
to  the  public,  belongs  therefore  to  the  public,  is  quite  a 
new  doctrine.  It  has  no  precedent,  and  is  supported  by 
no  known  principle.  Doctor  Wheelock  might  have  an- 
swered his  purposes,  in  this  case,  by  executing  a  private 
deed  of  trust.  He  might  have  conveyed  his  property  to 
trustees,  for  precisely  such  uses  as  are  described  in  this 

*  Ashby  v.  White,  2  Lord  Raym.  938. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  35 

charter.  Indeed,  it  appears  that  he  had  contemplated  the 
establishing  of  his  school  in  that  manner,  and  had  made 
his  will,  and  devised  the  property  to  the  same  persons 
who  were  afterwards  appointed  trustees  hi  the  charter. 
Many  literary  and  other  charitable  institutions  are 
founded  in  that  manner,  and  the  trust  is  renewed,  and 
conferred  on  other  persons,  from  time  to  time,  as  occasion 
may  require.  In  such  a  case,  no  lawyer  would  or  could 
say,  that  the  legislature  might  divest  the  trustees,  con- 
stituted by  deed  or  will,  seize  upon  the  property,  and  give 
it  to  other  persons,  for  other  purposes.  And  does  the 
granting  of  a  charter,  which  is  only  done  to  perpetuate  the 
trust  in  a  more  convenient  manner,  make  any  difference  ? 
Does  or  can  this  change  the  nature  of  the  charity,  and  turn 
it  into  a  public  political  corporation  ?  Happily,  we  are 
not  without  authority  on  this  point.  It  has  been  con- 
sidered and  adjudged.  Lord  Hardwicke  says,  hi  so  many 
words,  "  The  charter  of  the  crown  cannot  make  a  charity 
more  or  less  public,  but  only  more  permanent  than  it 
would  otherwise  be."  * 

The  granting  of  the  corporation  is  but  making  the  trust 
perpetual,  and  does  not  alter  the  nature  of  the  charity. 
The  very  object  sought  hi  obtaining  such  charter,  and  in 
giving  property  to  such  a  corporation,  is  to  make  and  keep 
it  private  property  and  to  clothe  it  with  all  the  security 
and  inviolability  of  private  property.  The  intent  is,  that 
there  shall  be  a  legal  private  ownership,  and  that  the 
legal  owners  shall  maintain,  and  protect  the  property,  for 
the  benefit  of  those  for  whose  use  it  was  designed.  Who 
ever  endowed  the  public  ?  Who  ever  appointed  a  legisla- 
ture to  administer  his  charity  ?  Or  who  ever  heard,  be- 
fore, that  a  gift  to  a  college,  or  hospital,  or  an  asylum,  was, 
hi  reality,  nothing  but  a  gift  to  the  state  ? 

The  state  of  Vermont  is  a  principal  donor  to  Dartmouth 
*  2  Atk.  87,  Attorney-General  v.  Pearce. 


36  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

College.  The  lands  given  lie  in  that  state.  This  appears 
in  the  special  verdict.  Is  Vermont  to  be  considered  as 
having  intended  a  gift  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  in 
this  case,  as,  it  has  been  said,  is  to  be  the  reasonable  con- 
struction of  all  donations  to  the  college  ?  The  legislature 
of  New  Hampshire  affects  to  represent  the  public,  and 
therefore  claims  a  right  to  control  all  property  destined 
to  public  use.  What  hinders  Vermont  from  considering 
herself  equally  the  representative  of  the  public,  and  from 
resuming  her  grants,  at  her  own  pleasure?  Her  right 
to  do  so  is  less  doubtful  than  the  power  of  New  Hampshire 
to  pass  the  laws  in  question. 

In  University  v.  Foy,*  the  supreme  court  of  North 
Carolina  pronounced  unconstitutional  and  void  a  law  re- 
pealing a  grant  to  the  University  of  North  Carolina, 
although  that  university  was  originally  erected  and  en- 
dowed by  a  statute  of  the  state.  That  case  was  a  grant  of 
lands,  and  the  court  decided  that  it  could  not  be  resumed. 
This  is  the  grant  of  a  power  and  capacity  to  hold  lands. 
Where  is  the  difference  of  the  cases,  upon  principle  ? 

In  Terrett  u.  Taylor,f  this  court  decided  that  a  legisla- 
tive grant  or  confirmation  of  lands,  for  the  purposes 
of  moral  and  religious  instruction,  could  no  more  be 
rescinded  than  other  grants.  The  nature  of  the  use  was 
not  holden  to  make  any  difference.  A  grant  to  a  parish 
or  church,  for  the  purposes  which  have  been  mentioned, 
cannot  be  distinguished,  in  respect  to  the  title  it  confers, 
from  a  grant  to  a  college  for  the  promotion  of  piety  and 
learning.  To  the  same  purpose  may  be  cited  the  case  of 
Pawlett  v.  Clark.  The  state  of  Vermont,  by  statute,  in 
1794,  granted  to  the  respective  towns  in  that  state  certain 
glebe  lands  lying  within  those  towns  for  the  sole  use  and 
support  of  religious  worship.  In  1799,  an  act  was  passed 
to  repeal  the  act  of  1794 ;  but  this  court  declared,  that 
*  2  Haywood's  Rep.  f  9  Cranch,  43. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  37 

the  act  of  1794,  «  so  far  as  it  granted  the  glebes  to  the 
towns,  could  not  afterwards  be  repealed  by  the  legisla- 
ture, so  as  to  divest  the  rights  of  the  towns  under  the 
grant."  * 

It  will  be  for  the  other  side  to  show  that  the  nature  of 
the  use  decides  the  question  whether  the  legislature  has 
power  to  resume  its  grants.  It  will  be  for  those  who 
maintain  such  a  doctrine  to  show  the  principles  and  cases 
upon  which  it  rests.  It  will  be  for  them  also  to  fix  the 
limits  and  boundaries  of  their  doctrine,  and  to  show  what 
are  and  what  are  not  such  uses  as  to  give  the  legislature 
this  power  of  resumption  and  revocation.  And  to  furnish 
an  answer  to  the  cases  cited,  it  will  be  for  them  further 
to  show  that  a  grant  for  the  use  and  support  of  religious 
worship  stands  on  other  ground  than  a  grant  for  the 
promotion  of  piety  and  learning. 

I  hope  enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  the  trustees 
possessed  vested  liberties,  privileges,  and  immunities, 
under  this  charter ;  and  that  such  liberties,  privileges, 
and  immunities,  being  once  lawfully  obtained  and  vested, 
are  as  inviolable  as  any  vested  rights  of  property  what- 
ever. Rights  to  do  certain  acts,  such,  for  instance,  as  the 
visitation  and  superintendence  of  a  college  and  the  ap- 
pointment of  its  officers,  may  surely  be  vested  rights,  to 
all  legal  intents,  as  completely  as  the  right  to  possess 
property.  A  late  learned  judge  of  this  court  has  said, 
"  When  I  say  that  a  right  is  vested  in  a  citizen,  I  mean 
that  he  has  the  power  to  do  certain  actions,  or  to  possess 
certain  things,  according  to  the  law  of  the  land."t 

If  such  be  the  true  nature  of  the  plaintiffs'  interests 
under  this  charter,  what  are  the  articles  in  the  New 
Hampshire  bill  of  rights  which  these  acts  infringe  ? 

They  infringe  the  second  article ;  which  says,  that  the 
citizens  of  the  state  have  a  right  to  hold  and  possess  prop- 
*  9  Cranch,  292.  t  3  DaU.  394. 


38  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

erty.  The  plaintiffs  had  a  legal  property  in  this  charter ; 
and  they  had  acquired  property  under  it.  The  acts  de- 
prive them  of  both.  They  impair  and  take  away  the 
charter ;  and  they  appropriate  the  property  to  new  uses, 
against  their  consent.  The  plaintiffs  cannot  now  hold 
the  property  acquired  by  themselves,  and  which  this 
article  says  they  have  a  right  to  hold. 

They  infringe  the  twentieth  article.  By  that  article  it 
is  declared  that,  in  questions  of  property,  there  is  a  right 
to  trial.  The  plaintiffs  are  divested,  without  trial  or 
judgment. 

They  infringe  the  twenty-third  article.  It  is  therein 
declared  that  no  retrospective  laws  shall  be  passed.  This 
article  bears  directly  on  the  case.  These  acts  must  be 
deemed  to  be  retrospective,  within  the  settled  construc- 
tion of  that  term.  What  a  retrospective  law  is,  has  been 
decided,  on  the  construction  of  this  very  article,  in  the 
circuit  court  for  the  first  circuit.  The  learned  judge  of 
that  circuit  says :  "  Every  statute  which  takes  away  or 
impairs  vested  rights,  acquired  under  existing  laws,  must 
be  deemed  retrospective."  *  That  all  such  laws  are  retro- 
spective was  decided  also  in  the  case  of  Dash  v.  Van 
Kleek,f  where  a  most  learned  judge  quotes  this  article 
from  the  constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  with  manifest 
approbation,  as  a  plain  and  clear  expression  of  those  fun- 
damental and  unalterable  principles  of  justice,  which  must 
lie  at  the  foundation  of  every  free  and  just  system  of 
laws.  Can  any  man  deny  that  the  plaintiffs  had  rights, 
under  the  charter,  which  were  legally  vested,  and  that  by 
these  acts  those  rights  are  impaired  ? 

"  It  is  a  principle  in  the  English  law,"  says  Chief  Jus- 
tice Kent,  in  the  case  last  cited,  "  as  ancient  as  the  law 
itself,  that  a  statute,  even  of  its  omnipotent  parliament, 

*  2  Gal.  103,  Society  v.  Wheeler,      f  7  Johnson's  Rep.  477. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  39 

is  not  to  have  a  retrospective  effect.     Nova  constitutio 
futuris  formam  imponere  debet,  et  non  prceteritis.* 

The  maxim  in  Bracton  was  probably  taken  from  the 
civil  law,  for  we  find  in  that  system  the  same  principle, 
that  the  lawgiver  cannot  alter  his  mind  to  the  prejudice 
of  a  vested  right.  Nemo  potest  mutare  concilium  suum  in 
alterius  injuriam.-f  This  maxim  of  Papinian  is  general  in 
its  terms,  but  Doctor  Taylor^  applies  it  directly  as  a  re- 
striction upon  the  lawgiver,  and  a  declaration  in  the  code 
leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  sense  of  the  civil  law.  Leges  et 
constitutiones  futuris  cerium  est  dare  formam  negotiis,  non 
adfacta prceterita  revocari,  nisi  nominatim,  et  deprceterito 
tempore^  et  adhuc  pendentibus  negotiis  cautum  sit.%  This 
passage,  according  to  the  best  interpretation  of  the  civilians, 
relates  not  merely  to  future  suits,  but  to  future,  as  contra- 
distinguished from  past,  contracts  and  vested  rights.  ||  It 
is  indeed  admitted  that  the  prince  may  enact  a  retrospec- 
tive law,  provided  it  be  done  expressly  ;  for  the  will  of  the 
prince  under  the  despotism  of  the  Roman  emperors  was 
paramount  to  every  obligation.  Great  latitude  was  an- 
ciently allowed  to  legislative  expositions  of  statutes ;  for  the 
separation  of  the  judicial  from  the  legislative  power  was  not 
then  distinctly  known  or  prescribed.  The  prince  was  in 
the  habit  of  interpreting  his  own  laws  for  particular  occa- 
sions. This  was  called  the  Interlocutio  Principis  ;  and 
this,  according  to  Huber's  definition,  was  quando  prin- 
cipes  inter  partes  loquuntur  et  jus  dicunt.^  No  correct 
civilian,  and  especially  no  proud  admirer  of  the  ancient 
republic  (if  any  such  then  existed,)  could  have  reflected 
on  this  interference  with  private  rights  and  pending 
suits  without  disgust  and  indignation ;  and  we  are  rather 
surprised  to  find  that,  under  the  violent  and  absolute 

*  Bracton,  Lib.  4,  fol.  228.   2d  Inst.  292.  f  Dig.  50.  17.  75. 

\  Elements  of  the  Civil  Law,  168.  §  Cod.  1.  14.  7. 

|  Perezii  Prselect.  h.  t.        H  Praelect.  Juris  Civ.,  Vol.  II,  545. 


40  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

genius  of  the  Roman  government,  the  principle  before  us 
should  have  been  acknowledged  and  obeyed  to  the  extent 
in  which  we  find  it.  The  fact  shows  that  it  must  be 
founded  in  the  clearest  justice.  Our  case  is  happily  very 
different  from  that  of  the  subjects  of  Justinian.  With  us 
the  power  of  the  lawgiver  is  limited  and  defined ;  the 
judicial  is  regarded  as  a  distinct,  independent  power; 
private  rights  have  been  better  understood  and  more  ex- 
alted in  public  estimation,  as  well  as  secured  by  provi- 
sions dictated  by  the  spirit  of  freedom,  and  unknown  to 
the  civil  law.  Our  constitutions  do  not  admit  the  power 
assumed  by  the  Roman  prince,  and  the  principle  we  are 
considering  is  now  to  be  regarded  as  sacred." 

These  acts  infringe  also  the  thirty-seventh  article  of 
the  constitution  of  New  Hampshire ;  which  says,  that  the 
powers  of  government  shall  be  kept  separate.  By  these 
acts,  the  legislature  assumes  to  exercise  a  judicial  power. 
It  declares  a  forfeiture,  and  resumes  franchises,  once 
granted,  without  trial  or  hearing. 

If  the  constitution  be  not  altogether  waste-paper,  it  has 
restrained  the  power  of  the  legislature  in  these  particu- 
lars. If  it  has  any  meaning,  it  is  that  the  legislature 
shall  pass  no  act  directly  and  manifestly  impairing  pri- 
vate property  and  private  privileges.  It  shall  not  judge 
by  act.  It  shall  not  decide  by  act.  It  shall  not  deprive 
by  act.  But  it  shall  leave  all  these  things  to  be  tried 
and  adjudged  by  the  law  of  the  land. 

The  fifteenth  article  has  been  referred  to  before.  It 
declares  that  no  one  shall  be  "  deprived  of  his  property, 
immunities,  or  privileges,  but  by  the  judgment  of  his 
peers  or  the  law  of  the  land."  Notwithstanding  the  light 
in  which  the  learned  judges  in  New  Hampshire  viewed 
the  rights  of  the  plaintiffs  under  the  charter,  and  which 
has  been  before  adverted  to,  it  is  found  to  be  admitted  in 
their  opinion,  that  those  rights  are  privileges  within  the 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  41 

meaning  of  this  fifteenth  article  of  the  bill  of  rights. 
Having  quoted  that  article,  they  say :  «  That  the  right  to 
manage  the  affairs  of  this  college  is  a  privilege,  within  the 
meaning  of  this  clause  of  the  bill  of  rights,  is  not  to  be 
doubted."  In  my  humble  opinion,  this  surrenders  the 
point.  To  resist  the  effect  of  this  admission,  however, 
the  learned  judges  add :  "  But  how  a  privilege  can  be 
protected  from  the  operation  of  the  law  of  the  land  by  a 
clause  in  the  constitution,  declaring  that  it  shall  not  be 
taken  away  but  by  the  law  of  the  land,  is  not  very  easily 
understood."  This  answer  goes  on  the  ground,  that  the 
acts  in  question  are  laws  of  the  land,  within  the  meaning 
of  the  constitution.  If  they  be  so,  the  argument  drawn 
from  this  article  is  fully  answered.  If  they  be  not  so,  it 
being  admitted  that  the  plaintiffs'  rights  are  "  privileges," 
within  the  meaning  of  the  article,  the  argument  is  not 
answered,  and  the  article  is  infringed  by  the  acts.  Are, 
then,  these  acts  of  the  legislature,  which  affect  only  par- 
ticular persons  and  their  particular  privileges,  laws  of  the 
land  ? 

Let  this  question  be  answered  by  the  text  of  Black- 
stone.  "  And  first  it  (i.  e.  law)  is  a  rule :  not  a  transient, 
sudden  order  from  a  superior  to  or  concerning  a  partic- 
ular person;  but  something  permanent,  uniform,  and 
universal.  Therefore  a  particular  act  of  the  legislature 
to  confiscate  the  goods  of  Titius,  or  to  attaint  him  of  high 
treason,  does  not  enter  into  the  idea  of  a  municipal  law ; 
for  the  operation  of  this  act  is  spent  upon  Titius  only, 
and  has  no  relation  to  the  community  in  general ;  it  is 
rather  a  sentence  than  a  law."  *  Lord  Coke  is  equally 
decisive  and  emphatic.  Citing  and  commenting  on  the 
celebrated  twenty-ninth  chapter  of  Magna  Charta,  he 
says  :  "  No  man  shall  be  disseized,  etc.,  unless  it  be  by 
the  lawful  judgment,  that  is,  verdict  of  equals,  or  by  the 
*  1  Black.  Com.  44. 


42  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

law  of  the  land,  that  is  (to  speak  it  once  for  all,)  by  the 
due  course  and  process  of  law."  *  Have  the  plaintiffs 
lost  their  franchises  by  "  due  course  and  process  of  law  ?  " 
On  the  contrary,  are  not  these  acts  "particular  acts  of 
the  legislature,  which  have  no  relation  to  the  community 
in  general  and  which  are  rather  sentences  than  laws  ?  " 

By  the  law  of  the  land  is  most  clearly  intended  the 
general  law ;  a  law  which  hears  before  it  condemns ; 
which  proceeds  upon  inquiry,  and  renders  judgment  only 
after  trial.  The  meaning  is,  that  every  citizen  shall  hold 
his  life,  liberty,  property,  and  immunities  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  general  rules  which  govern  society.  Every- 
thing which  may  pass  under  the  form  of  an  enactment  is 
not  therefore  to  be  considered  the  law  of  the  land.  If 
this  were  so,  acts  of  attainder,  bills  of  pains  and  penal- 
ties, acts  of  confiscation,  acts  reversing  judgments,  and 
acts  directly  transferring  one  man's  estate  to  another, 
legislative  judgments,  decrees,  and  forfeitures  in  all  pos- 
sible forms,  would  be  the  law  of  the  land. 

Such  a  strange  construction  would  render  constitutional 
provisions  of  the  highest  importance  completely  inoper- 
ative and  void.  It  would  tend  directly  to  establish  the 
union  of  all  powers  hi  the  legislature.  There  would  be 
no  general,  permanent  law  for  courts  to  administer  or  for 
men  to  live  under.  The  administration  of  justice  would 
be  an  empty  form,  an  idle  ceremony.  Judges  would  sit 
to  execute  legislative  judgments  and  decrees ;  not  to  de- 
clare the  law  or  to  administer  the  justice  of  the  country. 
"  Is  that  the  law  of  the  land,"  said  Mr.  Burke,  "  upon 
which,  if  a  man  go  to  Westminster  Hall,  and  ask  counsel 
by  what  title  or  tenure  he  holds  his  privilege  or  estate 
according  to  the  law  of  the  land,  he  should  be  told,  that 
the  law  of  the  land  is  not  yet  known ;  that  no  decision 
or  decree  has  been  made  in  his  case ;  that  when  a  decree 
*  Coke,  2  In.  46. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  43 

shall  be  passed,  he  will  then  know  what  the  law  of  the 
land  is  ?  Will  this  be  said  to  be  the  law  of  the  land,  by 
any  lawyer  who  has  a  rag  of  a  gown  left  upon  his  back, 
or  a  wig  with  one  tie  upon  his  head  ?  " 

That  the  power  of  electing  and  appointing  the  officers 
of  this  college  is  not  only  a  right  of  the  trustees  as  a  cor- 
poration, generally,  and  in  the  aggregate,  but  that  each 
individual  trustee  has  also  his  own  individual  franchise 
in  such  right  of  election  and  appointment,  is  according 
to  the  language  of  all  the  authorities.  Lord  Holt  says : 
« It  is  agreeable  to  reason  and  the  rules  of  law,  that  a 
franchise  should  be  vested  in  the  corporation  aggregate, 
and  yet  the  benefit  of  it  to  redound  to  the  particular 
members,  and  to  be  enjoyed  by  them  in  their  private 
capacity.  Where  the  privilege  of  election  is  used  by 
particular  persons,  it  is  a  particular  right,  vested  in  every 
particular  man"  * 

It  is  also  to  be  considered,  that  the  president  and  pro- 
fessors of  this  college  have  rights  to  be  affected  by  these 
acts.  Their  interest  is  similar  to  that  of  fellows  in  the 
English  colleges ;  because  they  derive  their  living,  wholly 
or  in  part,  from  the  founder's  bounty.  The  president  is 
one  of  the  trustees  or  corporators.  The  professors  are 
not  necessarily  members  of  the  corporation ;  but  they  are 
appointed  by  the  trustees,  are  removable  only  by  them, 
and  have  fixed  salaries  payable  out  of  the  general  funds 
of  the  college.  Both  president  and  professors  have  free- 
holds in  their  offices  ;  subject  only  to  be  removed  by  the 
trustees,  as  their  legal  visitors,  for  good  cause.  All  the 
authorities  speak  of  fellowships  in  colleges  as  freeholds, 
notwithstanding  the  fellows  may  be  liable  to  be  sus- 
pended or  removed,  for  misbehavior,  by  their  constituted 
visitors. 

Nothing  could  have  been  less  expected,  hi  this  age, 
*  2  Lord  Ray,  952. 


44  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

than  that  there  should  have  been  an  attempt,  by  acts  of 
the  legislature,  to  take  away  these  college  livings,  the 
inadequate  but  the  only  support  of  literary  men  who 
have  devoted  their  lives  to  the  instruction  of  youth. 
The  president  and  professors  were  appointed  by  the 
twelve  trustees.  They  were  accountable  to  nobody  else, 
and  could  be  removed  by  nobody  else.  They  accepted 
their  offices  on  this  tenure.  Yet  the  legislature  has  ap- 
pointed other  persons,  with  power  to  remove  these  officers 
and  to  deprive  them  of  their  livings ;  and  those  other 
persons  have  exercised  that  power.  No  description  of 
private  property  has  been  regarded  as  more  sacred  than 
college  livings.  They  are  the  estates  and  freeholds  of  a 
most  deserving  class  of  men ;  of  scholars  who  have  con- 
sented to  forego  the  advantages  of  professional  and  public 
employments,  and  to  devote  themselves  to  science  and 
literature  and  the  instruction  of  youth  in  the  quiet  re- 
treats of  academic  life.  Whether  to  dispossess  and  oust 
them ;  to  deprive  them  of  their  office,  and  to  turn  them 
out  of  their  livings ;  to  do  this,  not  by  the  power  of  their 
legal  visitors  or  governors,  but  by  acts  of  the  legislature, 
and  to  do  it  without  forfeiture  and  without  fault ;  whether 
all  this  be  not  in  the  highest  degree  an  indefensible  and 
arbitrary  proceeding,  is  a  question  of  which  there  would 
seem  to  be  but  one  side  fit  for  a  lawyer  or  a  scholar  to 
espouse. 

Of  all  the  attempts  of  James  II.  to  overturn  the  law, 
and  the  rights  of  his  subjects,  none  was  esteemed  more 
arbitrary  or  tyrannical  than  his  attack  on  Magdalen  Col- 
lege, Oxford ;  and  yet  that  attempt  was  nothing  but  to 
put  out  one  president  and  put  in  another.  The  president 
of  that  college,  according  to  the  charter  and  statutes,  is 
to  be  chosen  by  the  fellows,  who  are  the  corporators. 
There  being  a  vacancy,  the  king  chose  to  take  the  ap- 
pointment out  of  the  hands  of  the  fellows,  the  legal 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  45 

electors  of  a  president,  into  his  own  hands.  He  there- 
fore sent  down  his  mandate,  commanding  the  fellows  to 
admit  for  president  a  person  of  his  nomination ;  and,  in- 
asmuch as  this  was  directly  against  the  charter  and  con- 
stitution of  the  college,  he  was  pleased  to  add  a  non  ob- 
stante  clause  of  sufficiently  comprehensive  import.  The 
fellows  were  commanded  to  admit  the  person  mentioned 
in  the  mandate,  "  any  statute,  custom,  or  constitution  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding,  wherewith  we  are  gra- 
ciously pleased  to  dispense  in  this  behalf."  The  fellows 
refused  obedience  to  this  mandate,  and  Doctor  Hough,  a 
man  of  independence  and  character,  was  chosen  president 
by  the  fellows,  according  to  the  charter  and  statutes. 
The  king  then  assumed  the  power,  in  virtue  of  his  pre- 
rogative, to  send  down  certain  commissioners  to  turn  him 
out ;  which  was  done  accordingly ;  and  Parker,  a  crea- 
ture suited  to  the  times,  put  in  his  place.  And  because 
the  president,  who  was  rightfully  and  legally  elected, 
would  not  deliver  the  keys,  the  doors  were  broken  open, 
"  The  nation  as  well  as  the  university,"  says  Bishop 
Burnet,*  "looked  on  all  these  proceedings  with  just 
indignation.  It  was  thought  an  open  piece  of  robbery 
and  burglary  when  men,  authorized  by  no  legal  commis- 
sion, came  and  forcibly  turned  men  out  of  their  posses- 
sion and  freehold."  Mr.  Hume,  although  a  man  of  differ- 
ent temper,  and  of  other  sentiments,  in  some  respects, 
than  Doctor  Burnet,  speaks  of  this  arbitrary  attempt  of 
prerogative  in  terms  not  less  decisive.  "  The  president, 
and  all  the  fellows,"  says  he,  "except  two,  who  com- 
plied, were  expelled  the  college,  and  Parker  was  put  in 
possession  of  the  office.  This  act  of  violence,  of  all  those 
which  were  committed  during  the  reign  of  James,  is  per- 
haps the  most  illegal  and  arbitrary.  When  the  dispens- 
ing power  was  the  most  strenuously  insisted  on  by  court 
*  Hist,  of  his  own  Times,  Vol.  3,  p.  119. 


46  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

lawyers,  it  had  still  been  allowed  that  the  statutes  which 
regard  private  property  could  not  legally  be  infringed  by 
that  prerogative.  Yet,  hi  this  instance,  it  appeared  that 
even  these  were  not  now  secure  from  invasion.  The 
privileges  of  a  college  are  attacked;  men  are  illegally 
dispossessed  of  their  property  for  adhering  to  their  duty, 
to  their  oaths,  and  to  their  religion." 

This  measure  King  James  lived  to  repent,  after  repent- 
ance was  too  late.  When  the  charter  of  London  was  re- 
stored, and  other  measures  of  violence  retracted,  to  avert 
the  impending  revolution,  the  expelled  president  and  fel- 
lows of  Magdalen  College  were  permitted  to  resume  their 
rights.  It  is  evident  that  this  was  regarded  as  an  arbitrary 
interference  with  private  property.  Yet  private  property 
was  no  otherwise  attacked  than  as  a  person  was  appointed 
to  administer  and  enjoy  the  revenues  of  a  college  in  a 
manner  and  by  persons  not  authorized  by  the  constitution 
of  the  college.  A  majority  of  the  members  of  the  corpo- 
ration would  not  comply  with  the  king's  wishes.  A  minor- 
ity would.  The  object  was  therefore  to  make  this  minor- 
ity a  majority.  To  this  end  the  king's  commissioners 
were  directed  to  interfere  in  the  case,  and  they  united 
with  the  two  complying  fellows,  and  expelled  the  rest ; 
and  thus  effected  a  change  in  the  government  of  the 
college.  The  language  in  which  Mr.  Hume  and  all  other 
writers  speak  of  this  abortive  attempt  of  oppression, 
shows  that  colleges  were  esteemed  to  be,  as  they  truly 
are,  private  corporations,  and  the  property  and  privileges 
which  belong  to  them  private  property  and  private  privi- 
leges. Court  lawyers  were  found  to  justify  the  king  in 
dispensing  with  the  laws ;  that  is,  in  assuming  and  ex- 
ercising a  legislative  authority.  But  no  lawyer,  not  even 
a  court  lawyer,  in  the  reign  of  King  James  the  Second, 
as  far  as  appears,  was  found  to  say  that,  even  by  his  high 
authority,  he  could  infringe  the  franchises  of  the  fellows 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  4.7 

of  a  college,  and  take  away  their  livings.  Mr.  Hume  gives 
the  reason ;  it  is,  that  such  franchises  were  regarded,  in  a 
most  emphatic  sense,  as  private  property* 

If  it  could  be  made  to  appear  that  the  trustees  and  the 
president  and  professors  held  their  offices  and  franchises 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature,  and  that  the  property 
holden  belonged  to  the  state,  then  indeed  the  legislature 
have  done  no  more  than  they  have  a  right  to  do.  But 
this  is  not  so.  The  charter  is  a  charter  of  privileges  and 
immunities;  and  these  are  holden  by  the  trustees  ex- 
pressly against  the  state  forever. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  state,  by  its  courts  of  law,  can 
enforce  the  will  of  the  donor,  and  compel  a  faithful  ex- 
ecution of  the  trust.  The  plaintiffs  claim  no  exemption 
from  legal  responsibility.  They  hold  themselves  at  all 
times  answerable  to  the  law  of  the  land,  for  their  conduct 
in  the  trust  committed  to  them.  They  ask  only  to  hold 
the  property  of  which  they  are  owners,  and  the  franchises 
which  belong  to  them,  until  they  shall  be  found,  by  due 
course  and  process  of  law,  to  have  forfeited  them. 

It  can  make  no  difference  whether  the  legislature  ex- 
ercise the  power  it  has  assumed  by  removing  the  trustees 
and  the  president  and  professors,  directly  and  by  name, 
or  by  appointing  others  to  expel  them.  The  principle  is 
the  same,  and  in  point  of  fact  the  result  has  been  the 
same.  If  the  entire  franchise  cannot  be  taken  away, 
neither  can  it  be  essentially  impaired.  If  the  trustees  are 
legal  owners  of  the  property,  they  are  sole  owners.  If 
they  are  visitors,  they  are  sole  visitors.  No  one  will  be 
found  to  say,  that,  if  the  legislature  may  do  what  it  has 
done,  it  may  not  do  anything  and  everything  which  it 
may  choose  to  do,  relative  to  the  property  of  the  corpo- 
ration, and  the  privileges  of  its  members  and  officers. 

*  Vide  a  full  account  of  this  case  in  State  Trials,  4th  edition, 
Vol.  4,  page  262. 


48  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

If  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of  this  question  be  at 
all  correct,  this  was  an  eleemosynary  corporation,  a  private 
charity.  The  property  was  private  property.  The 
trustees  were  visitors,  and  the  right  to  hold  the  charter, 
administer  the  funds,  and  visit  and  govern  the  college, 
was  a  franchise  and  privilege,  solemnly  granted  to  them. 
The  use  being  public  in  no  way  diminishes  their  legal  es- 
tate in  the  property,  or  their  title  to  the  franchise.  There 
is  no  principle,  nor  any  case,  which  declares  that  a  gift  to 
such  a  corporation  is  a  gift  to  the  public.  The  acts  in  ques- 
tion violate  property.  They  take  away  privileges,  immu- 
nities, and  franchises.  They  deny  to  the  trustees  the  pro- 
tection of  the  law ;  and  they  are  retrospective  in  their 
operation.  In  all  which  respects  they  are  against  the 
constitution  of  New  Hampshire. 

The  plaintiff s  contend,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  acts 
in  question  are  repugnant  to  the  tenth  section  of  the  first 
article  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
material  words  of  that  section  are :  "  No  state  shall  pass 
any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or  law  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts." 

The  object  of  these  most  important  provisions  in  the 
national  constitution  has  often  been  discussed,  both  here 
and  elsewhere.  It  is  exhibited  with  great  clearness  and 
force  by  one  of  the  distinguished  persons  who  framed 
that  instrument:  "Bills  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  laws, 
and  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts,  are  con- 
trary to  the  first  principles  of  the  social  compact,  and  to 
every  principle  of  sound  legislation.  The  two  former  are 
expressly  prohibited  by  the  declarations  prefixed  to  some 
of  the  state  constitutions,  and  all  of  them  are  prohibited 
by  the  spirit  and  scope  of  these  fundamental  charters. 
Our  own  experience  has  taught  us,  nevertheless,  that  ad- 
ditional fences  against  these  dangers  ought  not  to  be 
omitted.  Very  properly,  therefore,  have  the  convention 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  49 

added  this  constitutional  bulwark,  in  favor  of  personal 
security  and  private  rights  ;  and  I  am  much  deceived,  if 
they  have  not,  in  so  doing,  as  faithfully  consulted  the 
genuine  sentiments  as  the  undoubted  interests  of  their 
constituents,  The  sober  people  of  America  are  weary  of 
the  fluctuating  policy  which  has  directed  the  public 
councils.  They  have  seen  with  regret,  and  with  indigna- 
tion, that  sudden  changes,  and  legislative  interferences  in 
cases  affecting  personal  rights,  become  jobs  hi  the  hands 
of  enterprising  and  influential  speculators,  and  snares  to 
the  more  industrious  and  less  informed  part  of  the  com- 
munity. They  have  seen,  too,  that  one  legislative  inter- 
ference is  but  the  link  of  a  long  chain  of  repetitions ; 
every  subsequent  interference  being  naturally  produced 
by  the  effects  of  the  preceding."  * 

It  has  already  been  decided  in  this  court,  that  a  grant 
is  a  contract,  within  the  meaning  of  this  provision ;  and 
that  a  grant  by  a  state  is  also  a  contract,  as  much  as  the 
grant  of  an  individual.  In  Fletcher  v.  Peck,f  this  court 
says:  "A  contract  is  a  compact  between  two  or  more 
parties,  and  is  either  executory  or  executed.  An  executory 
contract  is  one  in  which  a  party  binds  himself  to  do,  or 
not  to  do,  a  particular  thing ;  such  was  the  law  under 
which  the  conveyance  was  made  by  the  government.  A 
contract  executed  is  one  in  which  the  object  of  contract 
is  performed ;  and  this,  says  Blackstone,  differs  in  noth- 
ing from  a  grant.  The  contract  between  Georgia  and  the 
purchasers  was  executed  by  the  grant.  A  contract  ex- 
ecuted, as  well  as  one  which  is  executory,  contains  ob- 
ligations binding  on  the  parties.  A  grant,  in  its  own 
nature,  amounts  to  an  extinguishment  of  the  right  of  the 
grantor,  and  implies  a  contract  not  to  reassert  that  right. 
If,  under  a  fair  construction  of  the  constitution,  grants 
are  comprehended  under  the  term  contracts,  is  a  grant 
*  44th  No.  of  the  Federalist,  by  Mr.  Madison.  f  6  Cranch,  87. 
4 


50  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

from  the  state  excluded  from  the  operation  of  the  pro- 
vision ?  Is  the  clause  to  be  considered  as  inhibiting  the 
state  from  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts  between 
two  individuals,  but  as  excluding  from  that  inhibition 
contracts  made  with  itself  ?  The  words  themselves  con- 
tain no  such  distinction.  They  are  general,  and  are  ap- 
plicable to  contracts  of  every  description.  If  contracts 
made  with  the  state  are  to  be  exempted  from  their  opera- 
tion, the  exception  must  arise  from  the  character  of  the 
contracting  party,  not  from  the  words  which  are  em- 
ployed. Whatever  respect  might  have  been  felt  for  the 
state  sovereignties,  it  is  not  to  be  disguised  that  the 
f  ramers  of  the  constitution  viewed  with  some  apprehension 
the  violent  acts  which  might  grow  out  of  the  feelings 
of  the  moment;  and  that  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  in  adopting  that  instrument,  have  manifested 
a  determination  to  shield  themselves  and  their  property 
from  the  effects  of  those  sudden  and  strong  pas- 
sions to  which  men  are  exposed.  The  restrictions  on 
the  legislative  power  of  the  states  are  obviously  founded 
in  this  sentiment;  and  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  contains  what  may  be  deemed  a  bill  of  rights  for 
the  people  of  each  state." 

It  has  also  been  decided  that  a  grant  by  a  state  before  the 
revolution  is  as  much  to  be  protected  as  a  grant  since.*  But 
the  case  of  Terrett  v.  Taylor,  before  cited,  is  of  all  others 
most  pertinent  to  the  present  argument.  Indeed,  the 
judgment  of  the  court  in  that  case  seems  to  leave  little  to 
be  argued  or  decided  in  this.  "  A  private  corporation," 
say  the  court,  "  created  by  the  legislature,  may  lose  its 
franchises  by  a  misuser  or  a  nonuser  of  them  ;  and  they 
may  be  resumed  by  the  government  under  a  judicial 
judgment  upon  a  quo  warranto  to  ascertain  and  enforce 
the  forfeiture.  This  is  the  common  law  of  the  land,  and 
*  New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Cranch,  164. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.          51 

is  a  tacit  condition  annexed  to  the  creation  of  every  such 
corporation.  Upon  a  change  of  government,  too,  it  may 
be  admitted  that  such  exclusive  privileges  attached  to  a 
private  corporation  as  are  inconsistent  with  the  new 
government,  may  be  abolished.  In  respect,  also,  to 
public  corporations  which  exist  only  for  public  purposes, 
such  as  counties,  towns,  cities,  and  so  forth,  the  legislature 
may,  under  proper  limitations,  have  a  right  to  change, 
modify,  enlarge,  or  restrain  them,  securing,  however,  the 
property  for  the  uses  of  those  for  whom,  and  at  whose  ex- 
pense it  was  originally  purchased.  But  that  the  legislature 
can  repeal  statutes  creating  private  corporations,  or  con- 
firming to  them  property  already  acquired  under  the 
faith  of  previous  laws,  and  by  such  repeal  can  vest  the 
property  of  such  corporations  exclusively  in  the  state,  or 
dispose  of  the  same  to  such  purposes  as  they  please, 
without  the  consent  or  default  of  the  corporators,  we  are 
not  prepared  to  admit ;  and  we  think  ourselves  standing  up- 
on the  principles  of  natural  justice,  upon  the  fundamental 
laws  of  every  free  government,  upon  the  spirit  and  letter 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  upon  the 
decisions  of  most  respectable  judicial  tribunals,  in  resisting 
such  a  doctrine." 

This  court,  then,  does  not  admit  the  doctrine  that  a  legis- 
lature can  repeal  statutes  creating  private  corporations.  If 
it  cannot  repeal  them  altogether,  of  course  it  cannot  repeal 
any  part  of  them,  or  impair  them,  or  essentially  alter 
them,  without  the  consent  of  the  corporators.  If,  there- 
fore, it  has  been  shown  that  this  college  is  to  be  regarded  as 
a  private  charity,  this  case  is  embraced  within  the  very 
terms  of  that  decision.  A  grant  of  corporate  powers  and 
privileges  is  as  much  a  contract  as  a  grant  of  land.  What 
proves  all  charters  of  this  sort  to  be  contracts  is,  that 
they  must  be  accepted  to  give  them  force  and  effect.  If 
they  are  not  accepted,  they  are  void.  And  in  the  case  of 


52  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

an  existing  corporation,  if  a  new  charter  is  given  it,  it 
may  even  accept  part  and  reject  the  rest.  In  Rex  v< 
Vice-Chancellor  of  Cambridge,*  Lord  Mansfield  says : 
"  There  is  a  vast  deal  of  difference  between  a  new  charter 
granted  to  a  new  corporation,  (who  must  take  it  as  it  is 
given),  and  a  new  charter  given  to  a  corporation  already  in 
being,  and  acting  either  under  a  former  charter  or  under 
prescriptive  usage.  The  latter,  a  corporation  already  ex- 
isting, are  not  obliged  to  accept  the  new  charter  in  toto, 
and  to  receive  either  all  or  none  of  it;  they  may  act 
partly  under  it,  and  partly  under  their  old  charter  or 
prescription.  The  validity  of  these  •  new  charters  must 
turn  upon  the  acceptance  of  them."  In  the  same  case 
Mr.  Justice  Wilmot  says :  "  It  is  the  concurrence  and 
acceptance  of  the  university  that  gives  the  force  to  the 
charter  of  the  crown."  In  the  King  y.  Pasmore,t  Lord  Ken- 
yon  observes :  "  Some  things  are  clear :  when  a  corporation 
exists  capable  of  discharging  its  functions,  the  crown  can- 
not obtrude  another  charter  upon  them ;  they  may  either 
accept  or  reject  it."  t 

In  all  cases  relative  to  charters,  the  acceptance  of  them 
is  uniformly  alleged  in  the  pleadings.  This  shows  the 
general  understanding  of  the  law,  that  they  are  grants  or 
contracts ;  and  that  parties  are  necessary  to  give  them 
force  and  validity.  In  King  v.  Dr.  Askew, §  it  is  said: 
"  The  crown  cannot  oblige  a  man  to  be  a  corporator,  with- 
out his  consent ;  he  shall  not  be  subject  to  the  incon- 
veniences of  it,  without  accepting  it  and  assenting  to  it." 
These  terms,  "  acceptance  "  and  "  assent,"  are  the  very 
language  of  contract.  In  Ellis  y.  Marshal,  ||  it  was  ex- 
pressly adjudged  that  the  naming  of  the  defendant  among 
others,  in  an  act  of  incorporation,  did  not,  of  itself,  make 

*  3  Burr.  1656.  t  3  Term.  Rep.  240 

t  Vide  also  1  Kyd  on  Cor.  65.  §  4  Burr.  2200. 

0  2  Mass.  Rep.  269. 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  53 

him  a  corporator ;  and  that  his  assent  was  necessary  to  that 
end.  The  court  speak  of  the  act  of  incorporation  as  a 
grant,  and  observe :  "  That  a  man  may  refuse  a  grant, 
whether  from  the  government  or  an  individual,  seems  to 
be  a  principle  too  clear  to  require  the  support  of 
authorities."  But  Justice  Buller,  in  King  V.  Pasmore, 
furnishes,  if  possible,  a  still  more  direct  and  explicit 
authority.  Speaking  of  a  corporation  for  government,  he 
says :  "  I  do  not  know  how  to  reason  on  this  point,  better 
than  in  the  manner  urged  by  one  of  the  relator's  coun- 
sel, who  considered  the  grant  of  incorporation  to  be  a 
compact  between  the  crown  and  a  certain  number  of  the 
subjects,  the  latter  of  whom  undertake,  in  consideration 
of  the  privileges  which  are  bestowed,  to  exert  themselves 
for  the  good  government  of  the  place."  This  language  ap- 
plies with  peculiar  propriety  and  force  to  the  case  before 
the  court.  It  was  in  consequence  of  the  "privileges 
bestowed,"  that  Dr.  Wheelock  and  his  associates  under- 
took to  exert  themselves  for  the  instruction  and  education 
of  youth  in  this  college ;  and  it  was  on  the  same  con- 
sideration that  the  founder  endowed  it  with  his  property. 
And  because  charters  of  incorporation  are  of  the  nature 
of  contracts,  they  cannot  be  altered  or  varied  but  by  con- 
sent of  the  original  parties.  If  a  charter  be  granted  by 
the  king,  it  may  be  altered  by  a  new  charter  granted  by 
the  king,  and  accepted  by  the  corporators.  But,  if  the 
first  charter  be  granted  by  parliament,  the  consent  of 
parliament  must  be  obtained  to  any  alteration.  In  King 
V.  Miller,*  Lord  Kenyon  says,  "Where  a  corporation 
takes  its  rise  from  the  king's  charter,  the  king  by  granting, 
and  the  corporation  by  accepting  another  charter,  may 
alter  it,  because  it  is  done  with  the  consent  of  all  the 
parties  who  are  competent  to  consent  to  the  alteration."! 

*  6  Term  Rep.  277. 

'f  Vide  also  2  Brown's  Ch.  Rep.  662,  Ex  parte  Bolton  School. 


54  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

There  are,  in  this  case,  all  the  essential  constituent 
parts  of  a  contract.  There  is  something  to  be  contracted 
about,  there  are  parties,  and  there  are  plain  terms  in  which 
the  agreement  of  the  parties  on  the  subject  of  the  contract 
is  expressed.  There  are  mutual  considerations  and  in- 
ducements. The  charter  recites  that  the  founder,  on  his 
part,  has  agreed  to  establish  his  seminary  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  to  enlarge  it  beyond  its  original  design,  among 
other  things,  for  the  benefit  of  that  province  ;  and  there- 
upon a  charter  is  given  to  him  and  his  associates,  designated 
by  himself,  promising  and  assuring  to  them,  under  the 
plighted  faith  of  the  state,  the  right  of  governing  the  col- 
lege and  administering  its  concerns  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided hi  the  charter.  There  is  a  complete  and  perfect 
grant  to  them  of  all  the  power  of  superintendence,  visita- 
tion and  government.  Is  not  this  a  contract  ?  If  lands  or 
money  had  been  granted  to  him  and  his  associates,  for  the 
same  purposes,  such  grant  could  not  be  rescinded.  And 
is  there  any  difference,  in  legal  contemplation,  between  a 
grant  of  corporate  franchises  and  a  grant  of  tangible 
property  ?  No  such  difference  is  recognized  in  any  de- 
cided case,  nor  does  it  exist  in  the  common  apprehension 
of  mankind. 

It  is,  therefore,  contended  that  this  case  falls  within 
the  true  meaning  of  this  provision  of  the  constitution,  as 
expounded  in  the  decisions  of  this  court ;  that  the  charter 
of  1769  is  a  contract,  a  stipulation  or  agreement,  mutual 
in  its  considerations,  express  and  formal  in  its  terms,  and 
of  a  most  binding  and  solemn  nature.  That  the  acts  in 
question  impair  this  contract,  has  already  been  sufficiently 
shown.  They  repeal  and  abrogate  its  most  essential 
parts. 

A  single  observation  may  not  be  improper  on  the 
opinion  of  the  court  of  New  Hampshire,  which  has  been 
published.  The  learned  judges  who  delivered  that 


DAETMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.  55 

opinion  have  viewed  this  question  in  a  very  different 
light  from  that  hi  which  the  plaintiffs  have  endeavored 
to  exhibit  it.  After  some  general  remarks,  they  assume 
that  this  college  is  a  public  corporation ;  and  on  this  basis 
their  judgment  rests.  Whether  all  colleges  are  not  re- 
garded as  private  and  eleemosynary  corporations,  by  all 
law  writers,  and  all  judicial  decisions ;  whether  this  col- 
lege was  not  founded  by  Dr.  Wheelock;  whether  the 
charter  was  not  granted  at  his  request,  the  better  to  ex- 
ecute a  trust,  which  he  had  already  created ;  whether  he 
and  his  associates  did  not  become  visitors,  by  the  charter ; 
and  whether  Dartmouth  College  be  not,  therefore,  in  the 
strictest  sense,  a  private  charity,  are  questions  which  the 
learned  judges  do  not  appear  to  have  discussed. 

It  is  admitted  in  that  opinion,  that,  if  it  be  a  private 
corporation,  its  rights  stand  on  the  same  ground  as  those 
of  an  individual.  The  great  question,  therefore,  to  be  de- 
cided is,  To  which  class  of  corporations  do  colleges  thus 
founded  belong  ?  And  the  plaintiffs  have  endeavored  to 
satisfy  the  court,  that,  according  to  the  well-settled  prin- 
ciples and  uniform  decisions  of  law,  they  are  private, 
eleemosynary  corporations. 

Much  has  heretofore  been  said  on  the  necessity  of  ad- 
mitting such  a  power  in  the  legislature  as  has  been  as- 
sumed in  this  case.  Many  cases  of  possible  evil  have 
been  imagined,  which  might  otherwise  be  without  remedy. 
Abuses,  it  is  contended,  might  arise  in  the  management 
of  such  institutions,  which  the  ordinary  courts  of  law 
would  be  unable  to  correct.  But  this  is  only  another  in- 
stance of  that  habit  of  supposing  extreme  cases,  and  then 
of  reasoning  from  them,  which  is  the  constant  refuge  of 
those  who  are  obliged  to  defend  a  cause,  which,  upon  its 
merits,  is  indefensible.  It  would  be  sufficient  to  say  hi 
answer,  that  it  is  not  pretended  that  there  was  here  any 
such  case  of  necessity.  But  a  still  more  satisfactory  an- 


56  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

swer  is,  that  the  apprehension  of  danger  is  groundless,  and 
therefore,  the  whole  argument  fails.  Experience  has  not 
taught  us  that  there  is  danger  of  great  evils  or  of  great 
inconvenience  from  this  source.  Hitherto,  neither  hi 
our  own  country  nor  elsewhere  have  such  cases  of  neces- 
sity occurred.  The  judicial  establishments  of  the  state 
are  presumed  to  be  competent  to  prevent  abuses  and  vio- 
lations of  trust,  in  cases  of  this  kind,  as  well  as  in  all 
others.  If  they  be  not,  they  are  imperfect,  and  their 
amendment  would  be  a  most  proper  subject  for  legislative 
wisdom.  Under  the  government  and  protection  of  the 
general  laws  of  the  land,  these  institutions  have  always 
been  found  safe,  as  well  as  useful.  They  go  on,  with  the 
progress  of  society,  accommodating  themselves  easily, 
without  sudden  change  or  violence,  to  the  alterations 
which  take  place  in  its  condition,  and  in.  the  knowledge,  the 
habits,  and  pursuits  of  men.  The  English  colleges  were 
founded  in  Catholic  ages.  Their  religion  was  reformed 
with  the  general  reformation  of  the  nation  ;  and  they  are 
suited  perfectly  well  to  the  purpose  of  educating  the 
Protestant  youth  of  modern  times.  Dartmouth  College 
was  established  under  a  charter  granted  by  the  provincial 
government ;  but  a  better  constitution  for  a  college,  or 
one  more  adapted  to  the  condition  of  things  under  the 
present  government,  in  all  material  respects,  could  not 
now  be  framed.  Nothing  hi  it  was  found  to  need  altera- 
tion at  the  revolution.  The  wise  men  of  that  day  saw  in  it 
one  of  the  best  hopes  of  future  tunes,  and  commended  it  as 
it  was,  with  parental  care,  to  the  protection  and  guardian- 
ship of  the  government  of  the  state.  A  charter  of  more 
liberal  sentiments,  of  wiser  provisions,  drawn  with  more 
care,  or  in  a  better  spirit,  could  not  be  expected  at  any  time 
or  from  any  source.  The  college  needed  no  change  in  ite 
organization  or  government.  That  which  it  did  need  was 
the  kindness,  the  patronage,  the  bounty  of  the  legisla- 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.          57 

ture ;  not  a  mock  elevation  to  the  character  of  a  univer- 
sity, without  the  solid  benefit  of  a  shilling's  donation  to 
sustain  the  character ;  not  the  swelling  and  empty 
authority  of  establishing  institutes  and  other  colleges. 
This  unsubstantial  pageantry  would  seem  to  have  been 
in  derision  of  the  scanty  endowment  and  limited  means 
of  an  unobtrusive,  but  useful  and  growing  seminary. 
Least  of  all,  was  there  a  necessity,  or  pretense  of  necessity, 
to  infringe  its  legal  rights,  violate  its  franchises  and  privi- 
leges, and  pour  upon  it  these  overwhelming  streams  of 
litigation. 

But  this  argument,  from  necessity,  would  equally  apply 
in  all  other  cases.  If  it  be  well  founded,  it  would  prove, 
that,  whenever  any  inconvenience  or  evil  is  experienced 
from  the  restrictions  imposed  on  the  legislature  by  the 
constitution,  these  restrictions  ought  to  be  disregarded. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  the  people  have  thought  otherwise. 
They  have  most  wisely  chosen  to  take  the  risk  of  occasional 
inconvenience  from  the  want  of  power,  in  order  that 
there  might  be  a  settled  limit  to  its  exercise,  and  a  per- 
manent security  against  its  abuse.  They  have  imposed 
prohibitions  and  restraints  ;  and  they  have  not  rendered 
these  altogether  vain  and  nugatory  by  conferring  the 
power  of  dispensation.  If  inconvenience  should  arise 
which  the  legislature  cannot  remedy  under  the  power 
conferred  upon  it,  it  is  not  answerable  for  such  inconve- 
nience. That  which  it  cannot  do  within  the  limits  pre- 
scribed to  it,  it  cannot  do  at  all.  No  legislature  in  this 
country  is  able,  and  may  the  time  never  come  when  it 
shall  be  able,  to  apply  to  itself  the  memorable  expression 
of  a  Roman  pontiff :  "  Licet  hoc  DE  JURE  non  possumm, 
volumus  tamen  DE  PLEXITUDINE  POTESTATIS." 

The  case  before  the  court  is  not  of  ordinary  importance, 
nor  of  every-day  occurrence.  It  affects  not  this  college 
only,  but  every  college,  and  all  the  literary  institutions  of 


58  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

the  country.  They  have  flourished  hitherto,  and  have  be- 
come, in  a  high  degree,  respectable  and  useful  to  the  com- 
munity. They  have  all  a  common  principle  of  existence, 
the  inviolability  of  their  charters.  It  will  be  a  dangerous, 
a  most  dangerous  experiment,  to  hold  these  institutions 
subject  to  the  rise  and  fall  of  popular  parties,  and  the  fluc- 
tuations of  political  opinions.  If  the  franchise  may  be  at 
any  time  taken  away,  or  impaired,  the  property,  also,  may 
be  taken  away,  or  its  use  perverted.  Benefactors  will  have 
no  certainty  of  effecting  the  object  of  their  bounty  ;  and 
learned  men  will  be  deterred  from  devoting  themselves 
to  the  service  of  such  institutions,  from  the  precarious 
title  of  their  offices.  Colleges  and  halls  will  be  deserted 
by  all  better  spirits,  and  become  a  theater  for  the  con- 
tentions of  politics.  Party  and  faction  will  be  cherished 
in  the  places  consecrated  to  piety  and  learning.  These 
consequences  are  neither  remote  nor  possible  only.  They 
are  certain  and  immediate. 

When  the  court  in  North  Carolina  declared  the  law  of 
the  state,  which  repealed  a  grant  to  its  university,  uncon- 
stitutional and  void,  the  legislature  had  the  candor  and  the 
wisdom  to  repeal  the  law.  This  example,  so  honorable  to 
the  state  which  exhibited  it,  is  most  fit  to  be  followed  on 
this  occasion.  And  there  is  good  reason  to  hope  that  a 
state  which  has  hitherto  been  so  much  distinguished  for 
temperate  counsels,  cautious  legislation,  and  regard  to  law, 
will  not  fail  to  adopt  a  course  which  will  accord  with  her 
highest  and  best  interests,  and  in  no  small  degree  elevate 
her  reputation. 

It  was,  for  many  and  obvious  reasons,  most  anxiously 
desired  that  the  question  of  the  power  of  the  legislature 
over  this  charter,  should  have  been  finally  decided  in  the 
state  court.  An  earnest  hope  was  entertained  that  the 
judges  of  that  court  might  have  viewed  the  case  in  a  light 
favorable  to  the  rights  of  the  trustees.  That  hope  hag 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  VS.  WOODWARD.          59 

failed.  It  is  here  that  those  rights  are  now  to  be  main- 
tained, or  they  are  prostrated  forever.  Omnia  alia  per- 
fugia  bonorum,  sub  sidia,  consilia^  auxilia^jura  ceciderunt. 
Quern  enim  alium  appellem?  quern  obtester?  quern  implor- 
em  f  Nisi  hoc  loco,  nisi  apud  vos,  nisi  per  vos,  judices, 
salutem  nostram^  quce  spe  exigua  extremaque  pendet, 
tenuerimus  ;  nihil  est  prceterea  quo  confugere  possimus. 


PLYMOUTH  ORATION. 

FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 


PLYMOUTH  ORATION.* 

Discourse  in  Commemoration  of  The  First  Settlement  of  New 
England  Delivered  at  Plymouth,  on  the  22d  Day  of  De- 
cember, 1820. 

LET  us  rejoice  that  we  behold  this  day.  Let  us  be 
thankful  that  we  have  lived  to  see  the  bright  and  happy 
breaking  of  the  auspicious  morn,  which  commences  the 
third  century  of  the  history  of  New  England.  Auspici- 
ous, indeed — bringing  a  happiness  beyond  the  common 
allotment  of  Providence  to  men — full  of  present  joy,  and 
gilding  with  bright  beams  the  prospect  of  futurity,  is  the 
dawn  that  awakens  us  to  the  commemoration  of  the  land- 
ing of  the  Pilgrims. 

Living  at  an  epoch  which  naturally  marks  the  progress 
of  the  history  of  our  native  land,  we  have  come  hither  to 
celebrate  the  great  event  with  which  that  history  com- 
menced. Forever  honored  be  this,  the  place  of  our 
fathers'  refuge !  Forever  remembered  the  day  which 
saw  them,  weary  and  distressed,  broken  in  everything  but 
spirit,  poor  in  all  but  faith  and  courage,  at  last  secure 
from  the  dangers  of  wintry  seas,  and  impressing  this  shore 
with  the  first  footsteps  of  civilized  man  ! 

*  The  master-piece  next  in  the  order  of  time  is  the  following, 
which  was  pronounced  on  the  22d  of  December,  1820,  at  the  first 
anniversary  celebration  of  the  Landing  of  the  Pilgrims  at  Ply- 
mouth Rock,  two  hundred  years  from  the  date  of  that  event. 
At  the  time  of  its  delivery,  it  was  universally  regarded  as  the 
most  eloquent  address  ever  uttered  on  this  continent ;  and  cer- 
tainly nothing  equal  to  it  has  since  appeared,  excepting  what  Mr. 
Webster  has  produced.  On  the  day  it  was  delivered  the  orator 

was  nearly  thirty-eight  years  of  age. 

63 


64  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

It  is  a  noble  faculty  of  our  nature  which  enables  us  to 
connect  our  thoughts,  our  sympathies,  and  our  happiness 
with  what  is  distant  in  place  or  time  ;  and,  looking  before 
and  after,  to  hold  communion  at  once  with  our  ancestors 
and  our  posterity.  Human  and  mortal  although  we  are, 
we  are  nevertheless  not  mere  insulated  beings,  without 
relation  to  the  past  or  the  future.  Neither  the  point  of 
time,  nor  the  spot  of  earth,  in  which  we  physically  live, 
bounds  our  rational  and  intellectual  enjoyments.  We 
live  hi  the  past  by  a  knowledge  of  its  history ;  and  in  the 
future  by  hope  and  anticipation.  By  ascending  to  an 
association  with  our  ancestors ;  by  contemplating  their 
example  and  studying  their  character ;  by  partaking  their 
sentiments,  and  imbibing  their  spirit ;  by  accompanying 
them  in  their  toils,  by  sympathizing  in  their  sufferings, 
and  rejoicing  in  their  successes  and  their  triumphs ;  we 
mingle  our  own  existence  with  theirs  and  seem  to  belong 
to  their  age.  We  become  their  co-temporaries,  live  the 
lives  which  they  lived,  endure  what  they  endured,  and 
partake  in  the  rewards  which  they  enjoyed.  And  in  like 
manner,  by  running  along  the  line  of  future  time,  by 
contemplating  the  probable  fortunes  of  those  who  are 
coming  after  us,  by  attempting  something  which  may 
promote  their  happiness,  and  leave  some  not  dishonor- 
able memorial  of  ourselves  for  their  regard,  when  we 
shall  sleep  with  the  fathers,  we  protract  our  own  earthly 
being,  and  seem  to  crowd  whatever  is  future,  as  well  as 
all  that  is  past,  into  the  narrow  compass  of  our  earthly 
existence.  As  it  is  not  a  vain  and  false,  but  an  ex- 
alted and  religious  imagination,  which  leads  us  to  raise 
our  thoughts  from  the  orb,  which,  amidst  this  universe  of 
worlds,  the  Creator  has  given  us  to  inhabit,  and  to  send 
them  with  something  of  the  feeling  which  nature  prompts, 
and  teaches  to  be  proper  among  children  of  the  same 
Eternal  Parent,  to  the  contemplation  of  the  myriads  of 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND.  $5 

fellow-beings,  with  which  his  goodness  has  peopled  the 
infinite  of  space ;  so  neither  is  it  false  or  vain  to  consider 
ourselves  as  interested  and  connected  with  our  whole 
race,  through  all  tune ;  allied  to  our  ancestors ;  allied  to 
our  posterity  ;  closely  compacted  on  all  sides  with  others ; 
ourselves  being  but  links  in  the  great  chain  of  being, 
which  begins  with  the  origin  of  our  race,  runs  onward 
through  its  successive  generations,  binding  together  the 
past,  the  present,  and  the  future,  and  terminating  at  last, 
with  the  consummation  of  all  things  earthly,  at  the 
throne  of  God. 

There  may  be,  and  there  often  is,  indeed,  a  regard  for 
ancestry,  which  nourishes  only  a  weak  pride ;  as  there  is 
also  a  care  for  posterity,  which  only  disguises  an  habitual 
avarice,  or  hides  the  workings  of  a  low  and  groveling 
vanity.  But  there  is  also  a  moral  and  philosophical  re- 
spect for  our  ancestors,  which  elevates  the  character  and 
improves  the  heart.  Next  to  the  sense  of  religious  duty 
and  moral  feeling,  I  hardly  know  what  should  bear  with 
stronger  obligation  on  a  liberal  and  enlightened  mind, 
than  a  consciousness  of  alliance  with  excellence  which  is 
departed  ;  and  a  consciousness,  too,  that  in  its  acts  and 
conduct,  and  even  in  its  sentiments  and  thoughts,  it  may 
be  actively  operating  on  the  happiness  of  those  who  come 
after  it.  Poetry  is  found  to  have  few  stronger  concep- 
tions, by  which  it  would  affect  or  overwhelm  the  mind, 
than  those  in  which  it  presents  the  moving  and  speaking 
image  of  the  departed  dead  to  the  senses  of  the  living. 
This  belongs  to  poetry,  only  because  it  is  congenial  to  our 
nature.  Poetry  is,  in  this  respect,  but  the  handmaid  of 
true  philosophy  and  morality  ;  it  deals  with  us  as  human 
beings,  naturally  reverencing  those  whose  visible  connec- 
tion with  this  state  of  existence  is  severed,  and  who  may 
yet  exercise  we  know  not  what  sympathy  with  ourselves ; 
and  when  it  carries  us  forward,  also,  and  shows  us  the 
5 


66  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

long  continued  result  of  all  the  good  we  do,  in  the  pros- 
perity of  those  who  follow  us,  till  it  bears  us  from  our- 
selves, and  absorbs  us  hi  an  intense  interest  for  what 
shall  happen  to  the  generations  after  us,  it  speaks  only  hi 
the  language  of  our  nature,  and  affects  us  with  sentiments 
which  belong  to  us  as  human  beings. 

Standing  in  this  relation  to  our  ancestors  and  our  pos- 
terity, we  are  assembled  on  this  memorable  spot,  to  per- 
form the  duties  which  that  relation  and  the  present 
occasion  imposes  upon  us.  We  have  come  to  this  Rock, 
to  record  here  our  homage  for  our  Pilgrim  Fathers ;  our 
sympathy  in  their  sufferings  ;  our  gratitude  for  their  labors ; 
our  admiration  of  their  virtues ;  our  veneration  for  their 
piety ;  and  our  attachment  to  those  principles  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  which  they  encountered  the  dangers  of 
the  ocean,  the  storms  of  heaven,  the  violence  of  savages, 
disease,  exile,  and  famine,  to  enjoy  and  establish.  And  we 
would  leave  here,  also,  for  the  generations  which  are  rising 
up  rapidly  to  fill  our  places,  some  proof  that  we  have  en- 
deavored to  transmit  the  great  inheritance  unimpaired ; 
that  in  our  estimate  of  public  principles  and  private  virtue, 
in  our  veneration  of  religion  and  piety,  in  our  devotion 
to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  hi  our  regard  for  whatever 
advances  human  knowledge  or  improves  human  happi- 
ness,  we  are  not  altogether  unworthy  of  our  origin. 

There  is  a  local  feeling  connected  with  this  occasion, 
too  strong  to  be  resisted ;  a  sort  of  genius  of  the  place, 
which  inspires  and  awes  us.  We  feel  that  we  are  on  the 
spot  where  the  first  scene  of  our  history  was  laid ;  where 
the  hearths  and  altars  of  New  England  were  first  placed  j 
where  Christianity,  and  civilization,  and  letters  made  their 
first  lodgment,  in  a  vast  extent  of  country,  covered  with  a 
wilderness,  and  peopled  by  roving  barbarians.  We  are  here, 
at  the  season  of  the  year  at  which  the  event  took  place. 
The  imagination  irresistibly  and  rapidly  draws  around  us 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND.  57 

the  principal  features  and  the  leading  characters  in  the 
original  scene.  We  cast  our  eyes  abroad  on  the  ocean,  and 
we  see  where  the  little  bark,  with  the  interesting  group 
upon  its  deck,  made  its  slow  progress  to  the  shore.  We 
look  around  us,  and  behold  the  hills  and  promontories 
where  the  anxious  eyes  of  our  fathers  first  saw  the  places 
of  habitation  and  of  rest.  We  feel  the  cold  which  be- 
numbed, and  listen  to  the  winds  which  pierced  them. 
Beneath  us  is  the  Rock,  on  which  New  England  received 
the  feet  of  the  Pilgrims.  We  seem  even  to  behold  them, 
as  they  struggle  with  the  elements,  and,  with  toilsome 
efforts,  gain  the  shore.  We  listen  to  the  chiefs  in  coun- 
cil ;  we  see  the  unexampled  exhibition  of  female  fortitude 
and  resignation ;  we  hear  the  whisperings  of  youthful  im- 
patience, and  we  see,  what  a  painter  of  our  own  has  also 
represented  by  his  pencil,  chilled  and  shivering  childhood, 
houseless,  but  for  a  mother's  arms,  couchless,  but  for  a 
mother's  breast,  till  our  own  blood  almost  freezes.  The 
mild  dignity  of  Carver  and  of  Bradford ;  the  decisive  and 
soldier-like  air  and  manner  of  Standish ;  the  devout 
Brewster ;  the  enterprising  Allerton ;  the  general  firmness 
and  thoughtfulness  of  the  whole  band ;  their  conscious  joy 
for  dangers  escaped  ;  their  deep  solicitude  about  dangers 
to  come  ;  their  trust  in  Heaven ;  their  high  religious  faith, 
full  of  confidence  and  anticipation ;  all  these  seem  to  be- 
long to  this  place,  and  to  be  present  upon  this  occasion, 
to  fill  us  with  reverence  and  admiration. 

The  settlement  of  New  England  by  the  colony  which 
landed  here  on  the  twenty-second  of  December,  sixteen 
hundred  and  twenty,  although  not  the  first  European  es- 
tablishment in  what  now  constitutes  the  United  States, 
was  yet  so  peculiar  in  its  causes  and  character,  and  has 
been  followed  and  must  stiU  be  followed  by  such  conse- 
quences, as  to  give  it  a  high  claim  to  lasting  commemora- 
tion. On  these  causes  and  consequences,  more  than  on 


68  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

its  immediately  attendant  circumstances,  its  importance, 
as  an  historical  event,  depends.  Great  actions  and  strik- 
ing occurrences,  having  excited  a  temporary  admiration, 
often  pass  away  and  are  forgotten,  because  they  leave  no 
lasting  results,  affecting  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of 
communities.  Such  is  frequently  the  fortune  of  the  most 
brilliant  military  achievements.  Of  the  ten  thousand 
battles  which  have  been  fought,  of  all  the  fields  fertilized 
with  carnage,  of  the  banners  which  have  been  bathed  in 
blood,  of  the  warriors  who  have  hoped  that  they  had  risen 
from  the  field  of  conquest  to  a  glory  as  bright  and  as  dur- 
able as  the  stars,  how  few  that  continue  long  to  interest 
mankind !  The  victory  of  yesterday  is  reversed  by  the 
defeat  of  to-day ;  the  star  of  military  glory,  rising  like  a 
meteor,  like  a  meteor  has  fallen ;  disgrace  and  disaster 
hang  on  the  heels  of  conquest  and  renown ;  victor  and 
vanquished  presently  pass  away  to  oblivion,  and  the 
world  goes  on  in  its  course,  with  the  loss  only  of  so  many 
lives  and  so  much  treasure. 

But  if  this  be  frequently,  or  generally,  the  fortune  of 
military  achievements,  it  is  not  always  so.  There  are  en- 
terprises, military  as  well  as  civil,  which  sometimes  check 
the  current  of  events,  give  a  new  turn  to  human  affairs, 
and  transmit  their  consequences  through  ages.  We  see 
their  importance  in  their  results,  and  call  them  great,  be- 
cause great  things  follow.  There  have  been  battles  which 
have  fixed  the  fate  of  nations.  These  come  down  to  us 
in  history  with  a  solid  and  permanent  interest,  not  created 
by  a  display  of  glittering  armor,  the  rush  of  adverse  bat- 
talions, the  sinking  and  rising  of  pennons,  the  flight,  the 
pursuit,  and  the  victory ;  but  by  their  effect  in  advancing 
or  retarding  human  knowledge,  in  overthrowing  or  estab- 
lishing despotism,  in  extending  or  destroying  human  hap- 
piness. When  the  traveler  pauses  on  the  plain  of  Mara- 
thon, what  are  the  emotions  which  most  strongly  agitate 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND.  59 

his  breast?  What  is  that  glorious  recollection  which 
thrills  through  his  frame  and  suffuses  his  eyes  ?  Not,  I 
imagine,  that  Grecian  skill  and  Grecian  valor  were  here 
most  signally  displayed;  but  that  Greece  herself  was 
here  saved.  It  is  because  to  this  spot,  and  to  the  event 
which  has  rendered  it  immortal,  he  refers  all  the  succeed- 
ing glories  of  the  republic.  It  is  because,  if  that  day  had 
gone  otherwise,  Greece  had  perished.  It  is  because  he 
perceives  that  her  philosophers  and  orators,  her  poets  and 
painters,  her  sculptors  and  architects,  her  governments 
and  free  institutions,  point  backward  to  Marathon,  and 
that  their  future  existence  seems  to  have  been  suspended 
on  the  contingency,  whether  the  Persian  or  the  Grecian 
banner  should  wave  victorious  in  the  beams  of  that  day's 
setting  sun.  And,  as  his  imagination  kindles  at  the  retro- 
spect, he  is  transported  back  to  the  interesting  moment ; 
he  counts  the  fearful  odds  of  the  contending  hosts ;  his 
interest  for  the  result  overwhelms  him ;  he  trembles,  as  if 
it  were  still  uncertain,  and  seems  to  doubt  whether  he 
may  consider  Socrates  and  Plato,  Demosthenes,  Sophocles, 
and  Phidias,  as  secure,  yet,  to  himself  and  to  the  world. 

"  If  we  conquer,"  said  the  Athenian  commander,  on 
the  morning  of  that  decisive  day,  "  if  we  conquer,  we  shall 
make  Athens  the  greatest  city  of  Greece."  A  prophecy, 
how  well  fulfilled !  "  If  God  prosper  us,"  might  have  been 
the  more  appropriate  language  of  our  fathers,  when  they 
landed  upon  this  Rock,  « if  God  prosper  us,  we  shall  here 
begin  a  work  which  shall  last  for  ages ;  we  shall  plant 
here  a  new  society,  in  the  principles  of  the  fullest  liberty 
and  the  purest  religion ;  we  shall  subdue  this  wilderness 
which  is  before  us ;  we  shall  fill  this  region  of  the  great 
continent,  which  stretches  almost  from  pole  to  pole  with 
civilization  and  Christianity  ;  the  temples  of  the  true  God 
shall  rise,  where  now  ascends  the  smoke  of  idolatrous 
sacrifice ;  fields  and  gardens,  the  flowers  of  summer,  and 


70  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

the  waving  and  golden  harvest  of  autumn,  shall  extend 
over  a  thousand  hills,  and  stretch  along  a  thousand  val- 
leys, never  yet,  since  the  creation,  reclaimed  to  the  use  of 
civilized  man.  We  shall  whiten  this  coast  with  the  can- 
vas of  a  prosperous  commerce ;  we  shall  stud  the  long 
and  winding  shore  with  a  hundred  cities.  That  which 
we  sow  in  weakness  shall  be  raised  in  strength.  From 
our  sincere,  but  houseless  worship,  there  shall  spring 
splendid  temples  to  record  God's  goodness ;  from  the 
simplicity  of  our  social  union,  there  shall  arise  wise  and 
politic  constitutions  of  government,  full  of  the  liberty 
which  we  ourselves  bring  and  breathe  ;  from  our  zeal  for 
learning,  institutions  shall  spring  which  shall  scatter  the 
light  of  knowledge  throughout  the  land,  and,  in  time, 
paying  back  where  they  have  borrowed,  shall  contribute 
their  part  to  the  great  aggregate  of  human  knowledge ; 
and  our  descendants,  through  all  generations,  shall  look 
back  to  this  spot,  and  to  this  hour,  with  unabated  affection 
and  regard." 

A  brief  remembrance  of  the  causes  which  led  to  the 
settlement  of  this  place  ;  some  account  of  the  peculiarities 
and  characteristic  qualities  of  that  settlement,  as  distin- 
guished from  other  instances  of  colonization ;  a  short  notice 
of  the  progress  of  New  England  in  the  great  interests  of 
society,  during  the  century  which  is  now  elapsed ;  with 
a  few  observations  on  the  principles  upon  which  society 
and  government  are  established  in  this  country  ;  comprise 
all  that  can  be  attempted,  and  much  more  than  can  be 
satisfactorily  performed,  on  the  present  occasion. 

Of  the  motives  which  influenced  the  first  settlers  to  a 
voluntary  exile,  induced  them  to  relinquish  their  native 
country,  and  to  seek  an  asylum  in  this  then  unexplored 
wilderness,  the  first  and  principal,  no  doubt,  were  con- 
nected with  religion.  They  sought  to  enjoy  a  higher 
degree  of  religious  freedom,  and  what  they  esteemed  a 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND.  71 

purer  form  of  religious  worship,  than  was  allowed  to 
their  choice,  or  presented  to  their  imitation,  hi  the  Old 
World.  The  love  of  religious  liberty  is  a  stronger  senti- 
ment, when  fully  excited,  than  an  attachment  to  civil  or 
political  freedom.  That  freedom  which  the  conscience 
demands,  and  which  men  feel  bound  by  their  hopes  of 
salvation  to  contend  for,  can  hardly  fail  to  be  attained. 
Conscience,  in  the  cause  of  religion  and  the  worship  of 
the  Deity,  prepares  the  mind  to  act  and  to  suffer  beyond 
almost  all  other  causes.  It  sometimes  gives  an  impulse 
so  irresistible,  that  no  fetters  of  power  or  of  opinion  can 
withstand  it.  History  instructs  us  that  this  love  of 
religious  liberty,  a  compound  sentiment  in  the  breast  of 
man,  made  up  of  the  clearest  sense  of  right  and  the 
highest  conviction  of  duty,  is  able  to  look  the  sternest 
despotism  in  the  face,  and,  with  means  apparently  most 
inadequate,  to  shake  principalities  and  powers.  There  is 
a  boldness,  a  spirit  of  daring,  in  religious  reformers,  not 
to  be  measured  by  the  general  rules  which  control  men's 
purposes  and  actions.  If  the  hand  of  power  be  laid  upon 
it,  this  only  seems  to  augment  its  force  and  its  elasticity, 
and  to  cause  its  action  to  be  more  formidable  and  violent. 
Human  invention  has  devised  nothing,  human  power  has 
compassed  nothing,  that  can  forcibly  restrain  it,  when  it 
breaks  forth.  Nothing  can  stop  it,  but  to  give  way  to  it ; 
nothing  can  check  it,  but  indulgence.  It  loses  its  power 
only  when  it  has  gained  its  object.  The  principle  of 
toleration  to  which  the  world  has  come  so  slowly,  is  at 
once  the  most  just  and  the  most  wise  of  all  principles. 
Even  when  religious  feeling  takes  a  character  of  extrava- 
gance ano  enthusiasm,  and  seems  to  threaten  the  order  of 
society  and  shake  the  columns  of  the  social  edifice,  its 
principal  danger  is  in  its  restraint.  If  it  be  allowed  in- 
dulgence and  expansion,  like  the  elemental  fires,  it  only 
agitates,  and  perhaps  purifies,  the  atmosphere ;  while  its 


72  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

efforts  to  throw  off  restraint  would  burst  the  world 
asunder. 

It  is  certain,  that,  although  many  of  them  were  republi- 
cans in  principle,  we  have  no  evidence  that  our  New  Eng- 
land ancestors  would  have  emigrated,  as  they  did,  from 
their  own  native  country,  become  wanderers  in  Europe, 
and  finally  undertaken  the  establishment  of  a  colony  here, 
merely  from  their  dislike  of  the  political  systems  of 
Europe.  They  fled  not  so  much  from  the  civil  govern- 
ment, as  from  the  hierarchy,  and  the  laws  which  enforced 
conformity  to  the  church  establishment.  Mr.  Robinson 
had  left  England  as  early  as  sixteen  hundred  and  eight, 
on  account  of  the  persecutions  for  non-conformity,  and 
had  retired  to  Holland.  He  left  England,  from  no  disap- 
pointed ambition  in  affairs  of  state,  from  no  regrets  at 
the  want  of  preferment  in  the  church,  nor  from  any 
motive  of  distinction  or  of  gain.  Uniformity  in  matters 
of  religion  was  pressed  with  such  extreme  rigor,  that  a 
voluntary  exile  seemed  the  most  eligible  mode  of  escaping 
from  the  penalties  of  non-compliance.  The  accession  of 
Elizabeth  had,  it  is  true,  quenched  the  fires  of  Smithfield, 
and  put  an  end  to  the  easy  acquisition  of  the  crown  of 
martyrdom.  Her  long  reign  had  established  the  ref- 
ormation, but  toleration  was  a  virtue  beyond  her  con- 
ception, and  beyond  the  age.  She  left  no  example  of  it 
to  her  successor ;  and  he  was  not  of  a  character  which 
rendered  it  probable  that  a  sentiment  either  so  wise  or  so 
liberal  should  originate  with  him.  At  the  present  period 
it  seems  incredible,  that  the  learned,  accomplished,  un- 
assuming, and  inoffensive  Robinson  should  neither  be 
tolerated  in  his  peaceable  mode  of  worship  in  his  own 
country,  nor  suffered  quietly  to  depart  from  it.  Yet  such 
was  the  fact.  He  left  his  country  by  stealth,  that  he 
might  elsewhere  enjoy  those  rights  which  ought  to  belong 
to  men  in  all  countries.  The  embarkation  of  the  Pilgrims 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND.  7-3 

for  Holland  is  deeply  interesting,  from  its  circumstances, 
and  also  as  it  marks  the  character  of  the  times,  independ- 
ently of  its  connection  with  names  now  incorporated 
with  the  history  of  empire.  The  embarkation  was  in- 
tended to  be  in  the  night,  that  it  might  escape  the  notice  of 
the  officers  of  government.  Great  pains  had  been  taken 
to  secure  boats,  which  should  come  undiscovered  to  the 
shore,  and  receive  the  fugitives  ;  and  frequent  disappoint- 
ments had  been  experienced  in  this  respect.  At  length 
the  appointed  time  came,  bringing  with  it  unusual 
severity  of  cold  and  rain.  An  unfrequented  and  barren 
heath,  on  the  shores  of  Lincolnshire,  was  the  selected 
spot,  where  the  feet  of  the  Pilgrims  were  to  tread,  for 
the  last  time,  the  land  of  their  fathers. 

The  vessel  which  was  to  receive  them  did  not  come 
until  the  next  day,  and  in  the  mean  time  the  little  band 
was  collected,  and  men  and  women  and  children  and 
baggage  were  crowded  together,  in  melancholy  and  dis- 
tressed confusion.  The  sea  was  rough,  and  the  women 
and  children  already  sick,  from  their  passage  down  the 
river  to  the  place  of  embarkation.  At  length  the  wished  - 
for  boat  silently  and  fearfully  approaches  the  shore,  and 
men  and  women  and  children,  shaking  with  fear  and 
with  cold,  as  many  as  the  small  vessel  could  bear,  venture 
off  on  a  dangerous  sea.  Immediately  the  advance  of 
horses  is  heard  from  behind,  armed  men  appear,  and  those 
not  yet  embarked  are  seized,  and  taken  into  custody.  In 
the  hurry  of  the  moment,  there  had  been  no  regard  to 
the  keeping  together  of  families,  in  the  first  embarkation, 
and  on  account  of  the  appearance  of  the  horsemen,  the 
boat  never  returned  for  the  residue.  Those  who  had  got 
away,  and  those  who  had  not,  were  in  equal  distress. 

A  storm  of  great  violence,  and  long  duration,  arose  at 
sea,  which  not  only  protracted  the  voyage,  rendered  dis- 
tressing by  the  want  of  all  those  accommodations  which 


74:  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

the  interruption  of  the  embarkation  had  occasioned,  but 
also  forced  the  vessel  out  of  her  course,  and  menaced  im- 
mediate shipwreck ;  while  those  on  shore,  when  they  were 
dismissed  from  the  custody  of  the  officers  of  justice,  hav- 
ing no  longer  homes  or  houses  to  retire  to,  and  their 
friends  and  protectors  being  already  gone,  became  objects 
of  necessary  charity,  as  well  as  of  deep  commiseration. 

As  this  scene  passes  before  us,  we  can  hardly  forbear 
asking,  whether  this  be  a  band  of  malefactors  and  felons 
flying  from  justice.  What  are  their  crimes,  that  they  hide 
themselves  in  darkness  ?  To  what  punishment  are  they 
exposed  that,  to  avoid  it,  men,  and  women  and  children, 
thus  encounter  the  surf  of  the  North  Sea,  and  the  ter- 
rors of  a  night  storm  ?  What  induces  this  armed  pursuit, 
and  this  arrest  of  fugitives,  of  all  ages  and  both  sexes  ? 
Truth  does  not  allow  us  to  answer  these  inquiries  hi  a 
manner  that  does  credit  to  the  wisdom  or  the  justice 
of  the  times.  This  was  not  the  flight  of  guilt,  but  of 
virtue.  It  was  an  humble  and  peaceable  religion,  flying 
from  causeless  oppression.  It  was  conscience,  attempt- 
ing to  escape  from  the  arbitrary  rule  of  the  Stuarts.  It 
was  Robinson  and  Brewster,  leading  off  their  little 
band  from  their  native  soil,  at  first  to  find  shelter  on  the 
shores  of  the  neighboring  continent,  but  ultimately  to 
come  hither ;  and  having  surmounted  all  difficulties  and 
braved  a  thousand  dangers,  to  find  here  a  place  of  refuge 
and  of  rest.  Thanks  be  to  God,  that  this  spot  was  honored 
as  the  asylum  of  religious  liberty !  May  its  standard, 
reared  here,  remain  forever !  May  it  rise  up  as  high  as 
heaven  till  its  banner  shall  fan  the  air  of  both  continents, 
and  wave  as  a  glorious  ensign  of  peace  and  security  to 
the  nations ! 

The  peculiar  character,  condition,  and  circumstances  of 
the  colonies  which  introduced  civilization  and  an  English 
race  into  New  England,  afford  a  most  interesting  and  ex- 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND.  75 

tensive  topic  of  discussion.  On  these,  much  of  our  sub- 
sequent character  and  fortune  has  depended.  Their  in- 
fluence has  essentially  affected  our  whole  history,  through 
the  two  centuries  which  have  elapsed,  and  as  they  have 
become  intimately  connected  with  government,  laws,  and 
property,  as  well  as  with  our  opinions  on  the  subject  of 
religion  and  civil  liberty,  that  influence  is  likely  to  con- 
tinue to  be  felt  through  the  centuries  which  shall  suc- 
ceed. Emigration  from  one  region  to  another,  and  the 
emission  of  colonies  to  people  countries  more  or  less  dis- 
tant from  the  residence  of  the  parent  stock,  are  common 
incidents  in  the  history  of  mankind ;  but  it  has  not  often, 
perhaps  never,  happened,  that  the  establishment  of  col- 
onies should  be  attempted  under  circumstances,  however 
beset  with  present  difficulties  and  dangers,  yet  so  favor- 
able to  ultimate  success,  and  so  conducive  to  magnificent 
results,  as  those  which  attended  the  first  settlements  on 
this  part  of  the  continent.  In  other  instances,  emigration 
has  proceeded  from  a  less  exalted  purpose,  in  a  period  of 
less  general  intelligence,  or  more  without  plan  and  by 
accident ;  or  under  circumstances,  physical  and  moral,  less 
favorable  to  the  expectation  of  laying  a  foundation  for 
great  public  prosperity  and  future  empire. 

A  great  resemblance  exists,  obviously,  between  all  the 
English  colonies  established  within  the  present  limits  of 
the  United  States  ;  but  the  occasion  attracts  our  attention 
more  immediately  to  those  which  took  possession  of  New 
England,  and  the  peculiarities  of  these  furnish  a  strong 
contrast  with  most  other  instances  of  colonization. 

Among  the  ancient  nations,  the  Greeks,  no  doubt,  sent 
forth  from  their  territories  the  greatest  number  of  col- 
onies. So  numerous,  indeed,  were  they,  and  so  great  the 
extent  of  space  over  which  they  were  spread,  that  the 
parent  country  fondly  and  naturally  persuaded  herself, 
that  by  means  of  them  she  had  laid  a  sure  foundation  for 


76  SPEECHES  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

the  universal  civilization  of  the  world.  These  establish- 
ments, from  obvious  causes,  were  most  numerous  in  places 
most  contiguous ;  yet  they  were  found  on  the  coasts  of 
France,  on  the  shores  of  the  Euxine  Sea  in  Africa,  and 
even,  as  is  alleged,  on  the  borders  of  India.  These  emi- 
grations appear  to  have  been  sometimes  voluntary  and 
sometimes  compulsory  ;  arising  from  the  spontaneous  en- 
terprise of  individuals,  or  the  order  and  regulation  of  gov- 
ernment. It  was  a  common  opinion  with  ancient  writers, 
that  they  were  undertaken  in  religious  obedience  to  the 
commands  of  oracles,  and  it  is  probable  that  impressions 
of  this  sort  might  have  had  more  or  less  influence ;  but 
it  is  probable,  also,  that  on  these  occasions  the  oracle  did 
not  speak  a  language  dissonant  from  the  views  and  pur- 
poses of  the  state. 

Political  science  among  the  Greeks  seems  never  to  have 
extended  to  the  comprehension  of  a  system,  which  should 
be  adequate  to  the  government  of  a  great  nation  upon 
principles  of  liberty.  They  were  accustomed  only  to  the 
contemplation  of  small  republics,  and  were  led  to  consider 
an  augmented  population  as  incompatible  with  free  in- 
stitutions. The  desire  of  a  remedy  for  this  supposed 
evil,  and  the  wish  to  establish  marts  for  trade,  led  the 
governments  often  to  undertake  the  establishment  of 
colonies  as  an  affair  of  state  expediency.  Colonization 
and  commerce,  indeed,  would  naturally  become  objects  of 
interest  to  an  ingenious  and  enterprising  people,  inhabit- 
ing a  territory  closely  circumscribed  in  its  limits,  and  in 
no  small  part  mountainous  and  sterile ;  while  the  islands 
of  the  adjacent  seas,  and  the  promontories  and  coasts  of 
the  neighboring  continents,  by  their  mere  proximity, 
strongly  solicited  the  excited  spirit  of  emigration.  Such 
was  this  proximity,  in  many  instances,  that  the  new  settle- 
ments appeared  rather  to  be  the  mere  extension  of  popula- 
tion over  contiguous  territory,  than  the  establishment  of 


FIRST  SETTLEMENT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND.  77 

distant  colonies.  In  proportion  as  they  were  near  to  the 
parent  state,  they  would  be  under  its  authority,  and 
partake  of  its  fortunes.  The  colony  at  Marseilles  might 
perceive  lightly,  or  not  at  all,  the  sway  of  Phocis ;  while 
the  islands  in  the  JSgean  Sea  could  hardly  attain  to  in- 
dependence of  their  Athenian  origin.  Many  of  these 
establishments  took  place  at  an  early  age ;  and  if  there 
were  defects  in  the  governments  of  the  parent  states,  the 
colonists  did  not  possess  philosophy  or  experience  suffi- 
cient to  correct  such  evils  in  their  own  institutions,  even 
if  they  had  not  been,  by  other  causes,  deprived  of  the 
power.  An  immediate  necessity,  connected  with  the 
support  of  life,  was  the  main  and  direct  inducement  to 
these  undertakings,  and  there  could  hardly  exist  more 
than  the  hope  of  a  successful  imitation  of  institutions 
with  which  they  were  already  acquainted,  and  of  holding 
an  equality  with  their  neighbors  in  the  course  of  improve- 
ment. The  laws  and  customs,  both  political  and  munici- 
pal, as  well  as  the  religious  worship  of  the  parent  city, 
were  transferred  to  the  colony ;  and  the  parent  city  her- 
self, with  all  such  of  her  colonies  as  were  not  too  far 
remote  for  frequent  intercourse  and  common  sentiments, 
would  appear  like  a  family  of  cities,  more  or  less  de- 
pendent, and  more  or  less  connected.  We  know  how  im- 
perfect this  system  was,  as  a  system  of  general  politics, 
and  what  scope  it  gave  to  those  mutual  dissensions  and 
conflicts  which  proved  so  fatal  to  Greece. 

But  it  is  more  pertinent  to  our  present  purpose  to 
observe,  that  nothing  existed  in  the  character  of  Grecian 
emigration,  or  in  the  spirit  and  intelligence  of  the  emi- 
grants, likely  to  give  a  new  and  important  direction  to 
human  affairs,  or  a  new  impulse  to  the  human  mind. 
Their  motives  were  not  high  enough,  their  views  were 
not  sufficiently  large  and  prospective.  They  went  not 
forth,  like  our  ancestors,  to  erect  systems  of  more  perfect 


